BS  2505  .H4  1913 

Headlam,  Arthur  C. 

St.  Paul  and  Christianity 


ST.   PAUL   AND   CHRISTIANITY 


ST.   PAUL 
AND    CHRISTIANITY 

BY  ARTHUR  C.  HEADLAM,  D.D. 

PROFESSOR  OF  DOGMATIC  THEOLOGY  IN  KING'S  COLLEGE,  LONDON 

SOMETIME  FELLOW  OF  ALL  SOULS  COLLEGE,  OXFORD 

AND  PRINCIPAL  OF  KING'S  COLLEGE,  LONDON 


NEW  YORK 

LONGMANS,    GREEN    &    CO. 
1913 


PREFACE 

The  present  volume  was  written  originally  at 
the  suggestion  of  the  Dean  of  Wells,  for  the 
"  Cambridge  Manuals  of  Science  and  Letters." 
It  proved,  however,  when  completed,  con- 
siderably too  long  for  that  series,  and,  as  it 
had  already  been  unduly  compressed,  I  felt 
unable  to  reduce  it  any  further.  I  must 
therefore  express  my  thanks  to  the  Syndicate 
of  the  Cambridge  Press  for  relieving  me  from 
my  arrangement  with  them,  and  to  Mr.  John 
Murray  for  undertaking  the  publication.  At 
the  same  time  the  original  purpose  of  the 
work  will  explain,  and  I  hope  excuse,  the 
brevity  with  which  important  points  are 
treated,  and  the  necessarily  dogmatic  charac- 
ter of  many  statements  where  a  more  lengthy 
discussion  might  have  been  desirable. 

When  I  was  originally  asked  to  write  a 
work  on  "  St.  Paul  and  Christianity,"  I  was 
left  to  interpret  the  title  for  myself,  and  I 
took  it  to  mean  a  study  of  the   teaching  of 

V  b 


vi  PREFACE 

St.  Paul  and  its  place  in  the  development  of 
Christianity.  What  was  the  particular  posi- 
tion which  St.  Paul  held  ?  What  evidence 
does  he  give  us  of  what  early  Christianity  was  ? 
What  did  he  owe  to  it  ?  What  did  he  con- 
tribute to  it?  What  has  been  his  influence 
on  the  subsequent  history  of  Christianity  ?  It 
might  have  been  possible  to  answer  these 
questions  by  discussing  the  different  views 
which  various  scholars  have  held ;  but  a  dis- 
cussion of  opinions  is  never  really  illuminating, 
and  I  have  preferred  what  I  believe  to  be 
the  better  plan,  to  expound  what  St.  Paul 
taught  and  to  examine  his  opinions  in  the 
light  of  other  early  Christian  teaching.  I  have 
confined  myself  to  expressing  my  own  opinions 
upon  many  points  which  are  open  to  discus- 
sion, and  while  giving,  I  hope,  reasons  which 
may  be  felt  to  be  adequate  for  the  point  of 
view  adopted,  have  not  as  a  rule  attempted  to 
discuss  rival  theories.  It  will,  however,  be 
fairer  if  I  mention  shortly  the  main  alter- 
native opinions  about  St.  Paul's  theological 
position  which  have  been  held.  To  do  so 
in  any  detail  would,  of  course,  be  impossible, 
and  anyone  who  wishes  for  a  guide  through  the 
voluminous  literature  on  Paulinism  as  it  has 
been  produced  in  Germany  I  would  refer  to 


PREFACE  vii 

Schweitzer's  work  on  the  history  of  the  inter- 
pretation of  St.  Paul's  writings.^ 

First  the  critical  question.  On  this  not 
much,  I  think,  need  be  said.  It  is  enough  to 
say  that,  while  I  personally  believe  that  the 
thirteen  Epistles  which  claim  to  be  written  by 
St.  Paul  were,  with  the  limitations  1  have  sug- 
gested in  the  text,  genuine  writings  of  his, 
there  is,  of  course,  considerable  diversity  of 
opinion.  With  the  exception  of  one  particular 
school  of  Dutch  critics  who  have  not  succeeded 
in  gaining  any  credence  for  their  views,  no 
serious  scholar  doubts  the  genuineness  of  the 
four  principal  Epistles  —  Romans,  1  and  2 
Corinthians,  and  Galatians.  There  are  not 
many  nowadays  who  would  refuse  to  accept 
1  Thessalonians,  Colossians,  Phihppians,  and 
Philemon.  There  are  still  doubts  expressed 
by  some  as  to  2  Thessalonians  and  Ephe- 
sians.  Fewer  would  accept  the  Pastoral 
Epistles.*    As  regards  the  latter,  their  genuine- 

1  "  Geschichte  der  Paulinischen  Forschung  von  der 
Reformation  bis  auf  die  Gegenwart,"  von  Albert  Schweitzer. 
Translated  under  the  title  "Paul  and  his  Interpreters. 
By  Albert  Schweitzer,  Privat-docent  in  New  Testament 
Studies  in  the  University  of  Strasburg.  Translated  by 
W.  Montgomery,  B.A.,  B.D."  (London  :  Adam  and  Charles 
Black,  1912.) 

2  The  critical  view  may  be  studied  in  "  An  Introduction 
to  the  New  Testament,"  by  Adolf  Jiilicher,  Professor  of 


viii  PREFACE 

ness  for  our  purpose  matters  little.  That  is 
not  the  ease  with  regard  to  Ephesians.  It  is 
in  my  opinion  fundamental  to  a  proper  under- 
standing of  St.  Paul's  thought.  To  me  Ephe- 
sians is  Pauline  through  and  through,  and 
more  even  than  Romans  represents  the  deepest 
thoughts  of  the  Apostle ;  and  to  hold,  as  some 
would  do,  that  it  is  a  compilation,  or  that  it  is 
largely  interpolated,  shews  an  incapacity  (in 
my  view)  to  form  a  judgement  of  any  value 
in  critical  matters.  It  is  the  careful  study  of 
a  book  that  will  often  solve  the  question  of 
its  origin,  and  I  beheve  that  a  close  study  of 
the  text,  with  the  help  of  the  Dean  of  Wells' 
excellent  Commentary,  forms  a  most  decisive 
proof  of  its  genuineness.^ 

The  next  question  is  the  origin  of  St.  Paul's 

Theology  at  the  University  of  Marburg.  Translated  by 
Janet  Penrose  Ward  (London :  Smith,  Elder  and  Co., 
1904);  or  in  "  An  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the 
New  Testament,"  by  James  Moffatt,  B.D.,  D.D.  (Edin- 
burgh :  T.  and  T.  Clark,  1911);  the  more  conservative 
view  in  "  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,"  by  Theo- 
dore Zahn,  Professor  of  New  Testament  Exegesis,  Erlangen 
University.  Translated  from  the  third  German  edition 
(Edinburgh:  T.  and  T.  Clark,  1909). 

1  "  St  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,"  by  J.  Armitage 
Robinson.  Second  edition.  (London  :  Macmillan  and  Co., 
1904.) 


PREFACE  ix 

distinctive  thought.  There  is  a  definite  school 
that  would  explain  much,  at  any  rate,  of  his 
writings  as  the  product  of  Hellenic  influence. 
That  school,  which  is  a  considerable  one  in 
Germany,  is  best  represented  in  England  by 
Professor  Percy  Gardner.^  That  theory  I 
have  felt  definitely  obliged  to  reject.  It  is 
true,  of  course,  that  St.  Paul  wrote  in  the 
Greek  language.  It  is  true,  again,  that  Hel- 
lenic influences  had  been  brought  to  bear  on 
Judaism  ever  since  the  spread  of  Hellenism 
in  the  East  by  the  conquests  of  Alexander.  It 
is  clear,  again,  that  a  clever,  many-sided  man 
like  St.  Paul  could  not  move  about  in  the 
Graeco-Roman  world  without  being  affected 
by  it ;  but  none  of  these  influences  touched  the 
heart  of  his  thought.  In  no  case  did  they 
penetrate  beneath  the  surface.  St.  Paul  was 
at  heart  a  Jew  and  a  Pharisee.  His  mind  had 
been  formed  in  the  Rabbinical  schools,  and 
Pharisaism  had  been  developed  on  lines 
antagonistic  to  Hellenism  and  Hellenistic 
Judaism. 

The  third  question  is  the  relation  of  St.  Paul 
to  the  primitive  Church.     The  tenets  of  that 

1  *'The  Religious  Experience  of  St.  Paul,"  by  Percy 
Gardner.,  Litt.D.,  F.B.A.  (London  :  Williams  and  Norgate, 
1911.) 


X  PREFACE 

school  are  well  known,  which  had  its  source  in 
the  writings  of  Ferdinand  Christian  Baur,  and 
considered  that  CathoUc  Christianity  was  the 
result  of  the  combination  or  conciliation  of  two 
extreme  schools,  Ebionitism,  or  Jewish  Chris- 
tianity, and  Paulinism,  or  Hellenic  Christianity, 
and  that  between   St.  Paul  and  the  original 
Apostles   there   was   a   complete  and  funda- 
mental schism.     The  main  lines  of  the  theory 
are  no  longer  accepted  by  any  writer,  but  its 
influence  still  lingers,   and  few  writers  of  a 
"critical"  school  are  able  to  free  themselves 
entirely  from   its   effects.     It   is   obvious,   of 
course,  to  anyone  who  reads  St.  Paul,  that  he 
was  a  man  of  pronounced  and  decisive  indi- 
viduality;  that  he  held  his  opinions  strongly 
and  definitely ;  that  he  would  not  be  patient 
of  half  -  measures   or  compromises,  and   that 
there  were  occasions  when  he  differed  from  the 
other  Apostles.     A  careful  study,  however,  of 
the    documents    shows    that    the    differences 
between  the  two  parties  were  not  fundamental, 
and  that  on  all  the  main  lines  of  Christian 
teaching  St.  Paul  and  the  primitive  Apostles 
agreed ;    that    they   had    accepted    his   main 
position,  and  that  it  was  inconsistency,  half- 
heartedness,  and  timidity,  that  he  condemned. 
At  the  time  of  St.  Paul's  conversion  the  eman- 


PREFACE  xi 

cipation  of  Christianity  from  Judaism  had 
akeady  begun.  The  admission  of  the  Gentiles 
had  already  become  an  accomplished  fact.  St. 
Paul  realized  the  full  significance  of  both  these 
events  more  fully  than  did  others.  He  was 
prepared,  as  others  were  not,  to  carry  things 
to  a  logical  conclusion ;  but  he  did  not  differ 
fundamentally  from  the  rest  of  the  Church.^ 

Another  line  of  opinion  that  has  developed 
in  recent  years  may  be  represented  for  us  best 
by  Wrede's  "Paulus."^  The  result  of  his 
theory  is  really  to  make  Paul  the  founder  of 
Christianity  as  we  know  it.  Jesus,  he  main- 
tains, never  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah.  It 
was  to  St.  Paul  that  Jesus  first  owed  this  title, 
and  it  was  St.  Paul  who  outlined  the  character 
of  His   Messianic   functions  out  of  his  own 

1  The  best  account  of  the  Tubingen  theories  for  English 
readers  is  probably  that  contained  in  "  A  Historical  Intro- 
duction to  the  Study  of  the  Books  of  the  New  Testament," 
by  George  Salmon,  D.D.  (London :  John  Murray).  His 
criticism  is  full  of  vigour.  The  most  recent  refutation  is 
contained  in  "  The  Earlier  Epistles  of  St.  Paul ;  their 
Motive  and  Origin,"  by  Kirsopp  Lake  (London :  Riving- 
tons,  1911). 

2  "  Religionsgeschichtliche  Volksbiicher  herausgege- 
ben,"  von  Fr.  Michael  Schiele,  Tubingen.  "  Paulus," 
von  Professor  D.  William  Wrede.  Zweiter  Auflage, 
(Tiibingen:  J.  C.  B.  Mohr,  1907.) 


xii  PREFACE 

already-formed  conceptions,  for  he  had  no  real 
knowledge  as  to  the  teaching  or  personality  of 
our  Lord.  This  school  always  lays  great 
stress  on  what  I  believe  to  be  an  entire  mis- 
interpretation of  the  statement  of  St.  Paul, 
that  he  no  longer  knew  Jesus  after  the  flesh, 
and  it  would  hold  that  not  only  St.  John,  but 
also  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  have  been  largely 
influenced  by  St.  ^  Paul's  teaching.  I  cannot 
in  the  least  accept  this  view.  It  is  probable, 
of  course,  that  in  their  present  form  the 
Gospels  were  written  after  St.  Paul  had 
preached,  although  the  great  bulk  of  the 
material  out  of  which  they  were  formed  had 
been  written  down  at  an  earlier  period.  It  is 
possible,  therefore,  that  some  influence  of 
St.  Paul's  teaching  may  have  crept  in;  but 
the  most  striking  characteristic  of  the  Synoptic 
Gospels,  and,  for  that  matter,  of  St.  .John  also, 
is  the  complete  absence  in  them  of  any  of 
those  features  which  are  commonly  described 
as  Pauline.  In  almost  every  point  they  repre- 
sent simpler,  more  primitive,  and  I  beheve 
higher,  traditions.  There  is  no  sign  of  Phari- 
saic thought.  There  is  no  trace  of  the  in- 
fluence of  Pauline  categories.  They  represent 
the  source,  and  not  the  result,  of  St.  Paul's 
teaching. 


PREFACE  xiii 

And  then  there  is  the  modern  eschatologist, 
who  is  so  proud  of  ha^dng  brought  us  back  to 
the  historical  standpoint  that  he  cannot  see 
anything  else.  He  is  not  quite  so  irrational 
when  he  is  studying  St.  Paul  as  when  he  is 
examining  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  but  he  finds 
it  very  difficult  to  recognize  the  limits  of 
his  theories.  He  is  far  too  certain  that  his 
formulas  will  explain  everjjthing;  he  is  de- 
termined to  carry  out  a  narrow  theory 
logically,  and  therefore  becomes  irrational. 
The  eschatological  background  is  in  a  sense 
fundamental  to  St.  Paul,  but  it  is  only  one  of 
the  many  strains  of  thought  which  contributed 
to  his  mental  equipment  There  was  Old 
Testament  Judaism ;  there  was  Pharisaism ; 
there  was  the  transformation  effected  by  his 
own  deep  religious  experience  ;  there  was  his 
strong  ethical  interest ;  there  was,  above  all, 
the  uniqueness  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  "  the 
sweet  and  blessed  figure  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth." 

All  the  above  views  I  believe  to  be  one- 
sided or  mistaken.  In  some  cases  they  repre- 
sent a  perverted  view  of  the  w^ay  in  which 
things  happened.  In  other  cases  they  exag- 
gerate in  one  direction  some  particular  in- 
fluence. The  development  of  Christianity 
as  suggested  in  the  following  pages  is  more 


xiv  PREFACE 

conventional,  and,  I  believe,  truer  to  history. 
It  makes  the  starting-point  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  as  it  is  recorded  for  us.  It  sees  the 
development  of  that  teaching  in  the  hands 
of  the  primitive  Church.  It  recognizes  the 
striking  character  of  St.  Paul's  work  and 
thought.  Part  of  his  opinions  represented  the 
development  with  greater  vigour  and  intensity 
of  what  the  Christian  Church  was  already 
teaching,  and  on  those  lines  he  contributed  to 
swell  the  main  lines  of  Christian  thought. 
Certain  other  points  were  more  special  to 
himself,  the  result  of  the  expression  of  Chris- 
tianity in  accordance  with  the  philosophical 
ideas  in  which  he  had  been  brought  up,  or  in 
opposition  to  them.  These  elements  have 
represented  the  less  catholic  side  of  his  teach- 
ing. They  have  been  seized  on  from  time  to 
time  when  the  needs  of  the  day  required  them, 
but  they  did  not  so  directly  assist  in  the  de- 
velopment of  the  Christian  Church. 


CONTENTS 

PAGB 

I.   INTRODUCTION     -               -               -  -  1 

II.  THE  ESCHATOLOGY  OF  ST.   PAUL               -  -  22 

III.  ST.     PAUL'S     CHRISTOLOGY  —  THE     PERSON  OF 

CHRIST              -               -               -               •  -  38 

IV.  THE  WORK  OF  CHRIST    -               -               -  -  71 
V^^HE  SPIRIT           ...               -  95 

VI.   FAITH,   JUSTIFICATION,   SALVATION           -  -  116 

VII.   THE  CHRISTIAN   LIFE       -               -               -  -  140 

VIII.   THE  CHURCH       -                -               -               -  -  163 

IX.   THE  DIVINE   PURPOSE      -               -               -  -  182 

X.    ST.   PAUL  AND  CHRISTIANITY      -               -  -  195 

INDEX     ------  209 


XV 


ST,  PAUL  AND  CHEISTIANITY 


I 

INTRODUCTION 

The  sources  of  our  information — The  Epistles  of  St.  Paul — 
Their  dates  and  arrangement — Criticism  of  them — 
The  Acts  of  the  Apostles — St.  Paul's  training  and 
intellectual  equipment — His  knowledge  of  Christianity 
— His  conversion — Its  spiritual  significance. 

The  life  and  writings  of  St.  Paul  are  of  para- 
mount importance  in  any  investigation  of  the 
early  history  of  Christianity,  for  they  give  us 
a  fixed  point  from  which  to  start.  The 
genuineness  of  a  considerable  number  of 
Epistles  ascribed  to  him  does  not  admit  of 
any  reasonable  doubt.  Their  date  can  be 
fixed  within  a  few  years  with  as  near  an 
approach  to  certainty  as  is  possible  in  historical 
investigation.  We  know,  too,  the  work  that 
he  accomplished,  and  we  know  what  manner 
of  man  he  was.  Here,  in  the  midst  of  a  great 
deal  of  apparent  uncertainty,  we  have  some- 
thing fixed  and  definite.     It  is  the  purpose  of 

1 


2  INTRODUCTION 

this  short  treatise  to  examine  the  opinions  of 
St.  Paul  in  relation  to  certain  salient  points  in  his 
teaching,  to  discuss  the  genesis  of  those  opinions, 
and  to  investigate  the  relation  of  his  thought  to 
contemporary  Christian  teaching.  It  is  not 
proposed  to  say  anything,  except  incidentally, 
on  the  details  of  his  life  and  work,  nor  to  deal 
with  any  of  the  interesting  investigations  which 
have  been  made  into  the  archaeology  and  his- 
tory of  his  travels,  nor  to  examine  the  numerous 
minor  critical  questions  as  to  the  composition 
and  exact  date  of  the  different  Epistles.  It 
will  be  necessary,  however,  to  say  something 
about  the  sources  of  our  information  and 
about  certain  outstanding  facts  in  the  history 
of  the  Apostle,  his  theological  education,  his 
character,  and  his  religious  experience. 

I 

The  primary  sources  of  our  knowledge  of 
St.  Paul's  teaching  are  twofold^the  Epistles 
which  bear  his  name,  and  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles.  A  study  of  the  Epistles  will  shew 
that  they  divide  themselves  naturally  into  four 
groups.  The  first  consists  of  1  and  2  Thessa- 
lonians  ;  the  second,  of  Galatians,  1  and  2  Cor- 
inthians, and  Romans ;  the  third,  of  Philippians, 
Ephesians,Colossians,  and  Philemon ;  the  fourth, 


THE  EPISTLES  OF  ST.  PAUL      3 

of  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  1  and  2  Timothy,  and 
Titus.  With  regard  to  these  groups,  we  may- 
notice  that  they  are  the  necessary  result  of 
the  historical  study  of  the  circumstances  in 
which  the  Epistles  were  written,  that  a  defi- 
nite distinction  of  subject-matter  corresponds 
to  the  difference  in  date,  and,  further,  that 
certain  variations  in  style  coincide  with  the 
result  of  our  historical  and  theological  in- 
vestigations. 

In  the  first  group — the  Thessalonian  letters, 
which  were  written  about  the  years  a.d.  50,  51 
— we  get  what  we  may  look  upon  as  the 
normal  teaching  of  St.  Paul.  They  pre- 
suppose and  refer  in  various  passages  to  his 
mission  preaching.  They  deal  incidentally 
with  his  ordinary  theological  and  ethical  in- 
struction. Only  one  subject  is  developed  in 
at  all  a  systematic  manner  in  answer  to  certain 
questions  which  had  arisen — namely,  that  of 
eschatology.  Hence  the  most  marked  feature 
of  the  theology  is  Christ  as  Judge. 

In  the  second  group,  which  must  be  placed 
between  the  years  a.d.  52  and  58,  while  many 
practical  details  which  have  arisen  in  the  life 
of  the  Churches  are  touched  on^  the  dominant 
teaching  arises  from  the  Jewish  controversy,  and 
therefore  the  principal  subjects  discussed  are 


4  INTRODUCTION 

the  work  of  Christ  as  Redeemer,  the  relation 
of  law  and  faith,  our  justification,  sanctification, 
and  union  with  Christ. 

In  the  third  group,  the  Epistles  of  the  Cap- 
tivity, written  between  a.d.  58  and  Gl,  this  con- 
troversy is  passing  away.  There  are  still  echoes 
of  it,  indeed,  in  Philippians,  which  is  to  a  cer- 
tain extent  transitional,  but  in  Colossians  and 
Ephesians  two  new  questions  are  discussed  fully. 
In  Colossians  the  theology  of  the  person  of 
Christ  rather  than  His  work  is  for  the  first  time 
explicitly  dealt  with.  This  subject  demanded 
attention  owing  to  false  views  which  had  begun 
to  prevail  denying  His  supremacy.  The  other, 
Ephesians,  gives  us  what  is  in  some  ways  the 
culmination  of  St.  Paul's  teaching.  It  deals 
with  the  result,  if  we  may  put  it  so,  of  the 
Jewish  controversy — the  conception  of  the  one 
Christian  society,  including  within  its  folds 
Jew  and  Gentile  alike,  and  representing  the 
ultimate  purpose  of  God  in  the  creation  and 
government  of  the  world.  Throughout  these 
Epistles  constant  reminiscences  will  be  found 
of  the  teaching  of  the  second  group. 

The  fourth  group,  the  Pastoral  Epistles, 
written  between  a.d.  61  and  64,  comes  back 
in  some  ways  to  the  characteristics  of  the  first 
group.     There  are  many  eschatological  refer- 


THE  STYLE  OF  THE  EPISTLES     5 

ences  ;  there  are  also  many  reminiscences  of 
the  special  ideas  of  the  second  and  third  groups, 
while  throughout  the  personal  note  predomi- 
nates. Instead  of  doctrinal  questions,  we  have, 
as  the  natural  result  of  the  special  circum- 
stances of  the  Epistles,  directions  on  the 
practical  organization  and  government  of 
Churches. 

Now,  if  we  examine  the  Epistles  linguistic- 
ally, we  shall  find  that  they  undoubtedly  divide 
into  the  same  four  groups.  Throughout, 
indeed,  there  is  a  definite  unity  of  style  and 
vocabulary,  as  may  be  seen  by  a  few  minutes' 
consultation  of  a  concordance.  But  there  are 
certain  differences  characteristic  of  each  group. 
The  first  may,  perhaps,  represent  the  Apostle's 
normal  style.  He  is  not  carried  away  by  any 
overpowering  thought,  nor  are  his  feelings 
aroused  by  the  anger  of  controversy.  When 
we  come  to  the  second  group,  and  specially  to 
the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  there  is  a  change. 
The  keenness  of  the  controversy  has  aroused 
the  Apostle,  and  his  intense  feeling  is  reflected 
in  his  manner  of  writing.  He  is  rhetorical, 
argumentative ;  sometimes  his  thoughts  flow 
so  quickly  that  the  stages  of  the  argument 
seem  to  drop  out,  and  it  becomes  obscured. 
There  are  long  quotations  from  the  Old  Testa- 

2 


6  INTRODUCTION 

ment,  which  seem  generally  to  be  written  down 
from  memory.  There  are  signs  of  indignation, 
of  anger,  and  of  irony.  The  vocabulary  is 
influenced,  also,  by  the  changed  subject  of 
thought.  In  the  third  group,  which  has  some 
affinities  with  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  the 
style  again  changes  somewhat.  It  is  fuller, 
heavier,  the  sentences  are  longer,  the  words 
are  more  carefully  chosen.  It  is  the  language 
of  a  theological  treatise  rather  than  of  a 
polemical  pamphlet.  In  the  fourth  group  we 
come  back  to  a  simpler  method  of  expression. 
Here  the  marked  feature  is  the  great  difference 
of  vocabulary,  a  difference  which  is  certainly 
sufficient  to  justify  doubts  being  raised  as  to 
the  genuineness  of  the  group. 

Now,  these  different  phenomena  constitute 
a  strong  argument  in  favour  of  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  whole  collection  of  letters.  If  we 
regard  them  as  a  whole,  the  Pauline  style  is 
different  from  that  of  any  other  book  or  group 
of  books  of  the  New  Testament ;  and  the  co- 
incidences formed  by  the  fact  that  the  style, 
subject-matter,  and  historical  surroimdings,  all 
change  together  are  difficult  to  harmonize  with 
any  idea  of  deliberate  forgery  or  unconscious 
growth.  The  differences  in  style  and  vocabu- 
lary  between   the   different    groups    are    not 


METHOD  OF  COMPOSITION        7 

greater  than  is  natural  in  the  circumstances, 
if  we  remember  two  facts.  The  first  is 
that  St.  Paul  was  writing  in  what  was  to 
some  extent  a  foreign  language.  It  is  natural 
for  those  speaking  or  writing  in  a  language 
not  their  own  to  be  influenced  by  the  words 
which  have  been  recently  most  prominently 
brought  before  them.  Their  command  of  the 
language  is  unequal,  and  they  are  liable, 
therefore,  to  be  at  the  mercy  of  the  particular 
groups  of  words  which  may  be  impressed  upon 
them  at  the  moment.  The  second  point  to  be 
remembered  is  that  St.  Paul  wrote  none  of  his 
letters  with  his  own  hand.  They  were  all 
dictated,  and  in  these  circumstances  it  is 
never  quite  possible  to  say  how  far  the  words 
may  have  come  from  the  writer  or  from  the 
amanuensis.  In  particular,  it  is  possible  that 
some  of  the  difficulties  felt  as  regards  the 
Pastoral  Epistles  may  arise  from  the  fact  that 
sections  may  have  been  written  in  their  present 
form  by  other  hands.  There  are  many  docu- 
ments written  nowadays  which  have  a  similar 
composite  authorship,  sections  being  incor- 
porated by  the  Avriter  which  have  been  drafted 
by  different  persons.  Portions,  therefore,  of 
these  Epistles  may  have  been  written  out  for 
St.    Paul    by   one    of    his    companions,    and 


8  INTRODUCTION 

then  incorporated  in  the  Epistles.  A  theory- 
such  as  this  is  really  better  than  one  which 
suggests  later  interpolation,  because  there  is 
no  evidence  of  the  Epistles  ever  having  been 
circulated  in  any  form  different  from  that  in 
which  we  have  them,  and  there  are  no  passages 
which  on  any  grounds  need  be  held  to  imply 
a  later  date  than  the  time  of  the  Apostle. 

The  general  tendency  of  opinion  since  the 
days  when  doubts  began  to  be  first  cast  on 
the  authenticity  of  the  New  Testament  books 
has  been  always  towards  considering  a  larger 
number  of  these  Epistles  genuine  than  criti- 
cism originally  suggested.  There  are  still 
considerable  doubts  felt  by  many  as  to  the 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  but  even  as  regards 
this  Epistle  opinion  tends  more  and  more  to 
look  upon  it  as  genuine.  There  are  certain 
slight  difficulties — of  what  work  cannot  that 
be  said  ? — but  the  continuity  of  the  thought 
with  that  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  makes 
the  present  writer  have  no  doubts  as  to  its 
authorship.  The  suggestion  that  it  is  formed 
in  any  way  out  of  a  cento  of  passages  extracted 
from  the  Colossians  represents  criticism  in  its 
most  unconvincing  aspect,  for  there  is  no  work 
in  which  the  unity  of  thought  is  more  marked. 
The  Epistle  represents  the  culminating  point 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES         9 

of  St.  Paul's  teaching ;  his  vision  of  a  world- 
wide Church  is  seen  in  its  grandest  form  ;  it  is 
his  most  magnificent  exposition  of  what  he 
conceived  to  be  the  Divine  plan.  Writings 
of  such  prophetic  insight  are  not  built  up 
by  plagiarism.  Renan's  description  of  it  as 
**  banal  "  is  almost  ridiculous. 

When  we  come  to  the  fourth  group  the 
difficulties  are  greater.  No  writer  belonging 
to  what  is  called  a  "  definite  critical  school " 
accepts  them,  and  many  others  have  doubts. 
External  evidence  is  indeed  strongly  in  their 
favour.  They  were  clearly  known  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  second  century  to  St.  Ignatius 
and  St.  Polycarp,  and  their  omission  by 
jMarcion  from  his  collection  of  the  Pauline 
Epistles  is,  considering  their  contents,  of  no 
weight.  As  regards  their  historical  situation, 
there  is  no  difficulty  about  finding  a  place  for 
them,  if  we  can  assume  that  St.  Paul  was 
released  from  his  first  imprisonment  ;  if  we 
cannot,  it  is  almost  impossible  to  do  so. 
The  existence  of  these  Epistles  is  in  itself 
strong  evidence  for  this  last  stage  in  St.  Paul's 
career.  The  details  of  Church  organization 
have  troubled  many,  but  they  do  not  imply 
anything  more  advanced  than  the  other 
Epistles  or   the  Acts   of  the  Apostles ;   they 


10  INTRODUCTION 

only  work  out  the  earliest  form  of  Church 
order  in  greater  detail.  It  has  been  suggested 
that,  as  St.  Paul  expected  the  speedy  coming 
of  Christ,  he  would  hardly  have  concerned 
himself  with  such  matters.  That  argument 
is  of  no  value,  for  it  is  clear  that  the  writer  of 
the  Pastoral  Epistles,  whether  or  no  he  was 
St.  Paul,  certainly  expected  that  the  Parousia 
would  come  shortly.  There  remains  the  most 
serious  difficulty  —  that  of  style.  Although 
there  is  much  that  is  Pauline,  the  vocabulary 
differs  from  that  of  the  other  Epistles  more 
than  the  subject-matter  would  lead  us  to 
expect,  and  it  is  here  that  the  real  difficulty 
lies.  How  far  it  is  met  by  the  suggestion 
mentioned  above  must  be  left  to  others  to 
determine.  For  the  purpose  of  these  lectures 
the  Pastoral  Epistles  are  not  of  great  impor- 
tance. They  add  little  or  nothing  to  our 
knowledge  of  any  fundamental  point  in  St. 
Paul's  teaching,  and  it  is  rather  our  business 
to  inquire  how  far  their  doctrinal  position 
harmonizes  with,  or  is  consistent  with,  that 
of  other  Epistles.  We  may  therefore  quite 
well  suspend  our  judgement  with  regard  to 
them. 

The  second  main  source  of  our  knowledge 
is  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  here,  again,  our 


THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES     11 

attitude  may  well  be  one  of  suspense.    No  new 
point  is  added  to  our  conception  of  his  doctrine 
by  the  speeches  of  St.  Paul  which  are  given  in 
it,  and  our  inquiry  must  rather  be  whether  they 
accurately  represent  his  teaching.     There  can 
be  little  real  doubt  that  the  author  of  the  Acts 
was    St.  Luke.     The  question  of  importance 
is,  in  what  sense  the  speeches  recorded  in  it 
are  to  be  taken  as  historical.     It  is  well  known 
that   it   was   a   literary   habit   of  Greek   and 
Roman  writers  to  insert  speeches  of  their  own 
composition  to  represent  the  point  of  view  of 
different  actors  in  history.     Did  St.  Luke  do 
this,  or  had  he  accurate  information  of  what 
was  actually  said  ?     There  is  no  doubt  that 
the  speeches   in  the  Acts  are  written  in  the 
style  of  the  author  of  the  book.     They  are 
short  and  much  compressed  ;  but  an  examina- 
tion of  their  contents  shews  that  they  must 
have  been  based  upon  an  accurate  acquaintance 
with  the  general  character  of  the  teaching  of 
St.    Paul   and   the   other   Apostles,  and  it  is 
probable  that  in  certain  cases  they  are  a  short 
reproduction   of  the   actual   speeches.      They 
were  intended  by  the  writer  to  represent  to 
us  the  different  types  of  Apostolic  teaching, 
and  he  had  good  means  of  knowing  what  that 
teaching  was.     The  general  historical  value  of 


12  INTRODUCTION^ 

the  work  is   certainly  becoming  more  firmly 
established  as  knowledge  increases. 

Apart  from  these  two  sources,  any  know- 
ledge that  we  may  obtain  of  St.  Paul's  teach- 
ing from  later  writers  or  tradition  is  so  slight 
that  it  may  for  our  purpose  be  ignored. 

II 

The  fundamental  fact  in  the  history  of  St. 
Paul  was  his  conversion.  Of  that  we  have 
full  accounts  in  the  Acts — accounts  which 
may  differ  in  detail,  but  agree  completely  as 
to  the  main  incident.  We  have  references 
to  it  also  in  his  own  writings.  The  funda- 
mental fact  is  undoubted.  Owing  to  a  vision 
on  the  road  to  Damascus  his  whole  life 
was  suddenly  and  completely  changed.  What 
he  had  before  persecuted  he  now  preached 
with  all  his  power.  To  this  he  devoted  his  life 
until  he  laid  it  down  as  a  martyr  to  Christ. 
What  was  he  before  his  conversion  ?  He 
describes  himself  as  having  been  a  Hebrew  of 
the  Hebrews,  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  ;  more 
zealous  than  any  of  his  contemporaries  in  his 
zeal  for  the  law  —  a  Pharisee.  Although  a 
Roman  citizen,  and  born  in  a  cultivated  Greek 
city.  Tarsus,  he  was  an  Aramaic-speaking  Jew> 
and  he  was  little  influenced,  probably,  by  the 


ST.  PAUL'S  TRAINING  13 

Greek  life  of  the  place.  He  had  come  to 
Jerusalem  to  be  a  pupil  in  the  schools  of  the 
Rabbis,  sitting  at  the  feet  of  Gamaliel.  These 
facts  are  fundamental  for  his  mental  history. 
A  distinctive  feature  of  St.  Paul  is  that  he 
interpreted  Christianity  according  to  the 
method  of  thought  which  his  Rabbinical  train- 
ing had  given  him. 

Judaism  at  the  beginning  of  the  Christian 
era  presented  varied  features,  and  there  were 
within  it  certain  distinctive  schools  of  thought. 
The  fundamental  point  shared  by  all  alike  was 
the  acceptance  of  the  Jewish  creed  and  life  as 
it  may  be  learned  from,  and  is  implied  in,  the 
Old  Testament.  This,  of  course,  St.  Paul 
shared  with  all  his  contemporaries,  and  the 
belief  and  acceptance  of  it  is  assumed  in  all 
the  New  Testament  Scriptures.  In  this  there 
was  nothing  novel.  Then  there  was  the  de- 
velopment of  thought  which  we  call  Apoca- 
lyptic, contained  in  that  strange  series  of  works 
which  extend  from  the  prophet  Daniel  to 
those  last  writers  who  mourn  over  the  de- 
struction of  the  Jewish  nation.  Here,  again, 
St.  Paul  shared  the  opinion  of  his  contempo- 
raries. We  know,  from  the  fragments  of 
apocalyptic  teaching  preserved  in  Rabbinical 
writings,  that  the  Rabbis  were  not  unaffected 


14  INTRODUCTION 

by  this  movement,  and  St.  Paul  clearly  shared 
in  their  thoughts ;  but  he  did  not  in  this  way 
introduce  anything  new  into  Christianity.  It 
was  the  popular  theology  of  the  day,  and  was 
accepted  as  such  by  all  the  early  teachers  of 
Christianity. 

There  was,  thirdly,  the  element  which  we 
call  Rabbinical.  This  was  the  new  element 
that  St.  Paul  brought  into  Christianity,  and  it 
influenced  his  teaching  partly  by  way  of  re- 
action, partly  by  having  given  him  forms  of 
thought  or  categories  under  which  he  neces- 
sarily discussed  various  questions  that  arose. 
Just  in  the  same  way  Protestantism  was 
a  reaction  from  the  mediaeval  system  of 
thought,  but  it  could  not  shake  itself  free 
from  the  mental  atmosphere  in  which  it 
had  arisen,  and  so  there  arose  a  Protestant 
Scholasticism.  While  St.  Paul's  conversion 
meant,  of  course,  in  many  ways  a  revolt 
against  his  early  training,  he  did  not  entirely 
free  himself  from  it,  and  throughout  his 
writings  there  are  traces  of  Rabbinical  in- 
fluences. Questions  that  he  discussed  were 
questions  that  were  discussed  in  the  schools. 
His  early  training  gave  him  his  method  of 
argument.  The  absence  of  system  in  his 
theology  corresponds  to  the  unsystematic  style 


HELLENISTIC  JUDAISM         15 

of  Rabbinical  speculation.  His  doctrine  of 
Justification,  of  Predestination,  of  Free-will, 
and  Divine  Grace,  were  all  influenced  by  his 
early  education. 

Then,  fourthly,  there  was  Hellenistic  Judaism. 
How  far  was  St.  Paul  influenced  by  this  ?  We 
know,  at  any  rate,  that  he  used  the  Septuagint, 
and  knew  it  well.  He  rarely  shews  in  his 
quotations  any  real  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew 
Bible.  He  was  acquainted  also  with  the  Book 
of  Wisdom,  and  had  been  much  influenced  by 
it.  There  are  considerable  traces  of  its  use  in 
Romans.  The  language  used  regarding  the 
resurrection  of  the  body  in  2  Corinthians 
seems  drawn  from  it,  and  it  provided  many 
of  the  expressions  employed  in  the  Colossians 
to  describe  the  attributes  of  the  Divine  Christ. 
There  is,  however,  no  evidence  that  he  was 
acquainted  with  the  writings  of  Philo,  and  his 
whole  cast  of  thought  was  Palestinian,  and  not 
Alexandrian. 

The  new  influence,  then,  brought  by  St.  Paul 
into  Christianity,  apart  from  all  that  came 
from  his  character  and  personality,  was  that  of 
his  Jewish  training  in  the  Rabbinical  schools 
of  Jerusalem.  That  is,  he  was  an  educated 
theologian  of  the  day.  Here  lies  the  con- 
trast with  the  popular  and   simpler  Judaism 


16  INTRODUCTION 

of  the  Galilean  disciples.  At  one  time  it  was 
customary  to  find  a  good  deal  of  direct  Hellenic 
influence  in  St.  Paul's  writings.  I  do  not  believe 
that  that  is  correct.  The  relations  of  St.  Paul 
to  the  Greek  or  Roman  life  of  his  time  were 
only  superficial.  An  able  man  such  as  he 
was,  with  a  keenness  of  sympathy  and  vivid- 
ness of  insight,  travelling  through  the  world  of 
his  day,  mixing  with  many  classes  of  persons, 
could  not  but  be  affected  by  what  he  saw  and 
heard,  and  so  the  life  of  the  times,  its  political 
ideas,  its  games,  its  philosophy,  its  poetry,  all 
found  echoes  in  his  writings.  But  the  influence 
was  not  fundamental.  It  supplied  him  with 
language  and  imagery,  but  did  not  mould  his 
thought.  His  ideas  are  expressed  in  Hebrew 
and  not  in  Greek  categories. 

There  was  one  more  element  which  must 
have  affected  St.  Paul's  life  even  before  his 
conversion,  the  existence  of  which  is  some- 
times forgotten.  He  must  already  have  known 
a  good  deal  about  Christianity.  Probably  he 
was  one  of  those  who  had  disputed  with 
Stephen.  At  any  rate,  he  would  not  have  per- 
secuted the  Christians  unless  he  had  known 
enough  of  their  opinions  to  give  him  a  reason 
for  doing  so.  This  is  a  fundamental  fact  which 
is  sometimes  lost  sight  of  in  studying  the  history 


KNOWLEDGE  OF  CHRISTIANITY   17 

both  of  St.  Paul  and  of  early  Christianity.  If 
Christianity  owed,  as  some  would  have  it,  most 
of  its  existing  features  to  St.  Paul,  if  from 
him  it  derived  its  conception  of  Christ  as  the 
Messiah,  the  idea  of  salvation  apart  from  the 
law,  its  universalist  tendencies,  its  broad  and 
liberal  outlook,  if  these  had  not  existed  in  the 
primitive  Church,  there  would  have  been  no 
reason  why  St.  Paul  or  any  Pharisee  should 
have  persecuted  it.  He  persecuted  Christi- 
anity because  it  meant  the  destruction  of 
everything  which,  as  a  strict  Jew,  he  con- 
sidered an  essential  part  of  the  Divine  law. 
Already  it  must  have  shewn  signs  that  it 
would  break  down  the  exclusiveness  of  Juda- 
ism and  the  rigour  of  its  legal  system,  or 
St.  Paul  would  not  have  found  himself  in 
opposition  to  it.  It  is  significant  that  at  first 
it  was  the  Sadducees,  the  party  of  order,  who 
were  the  opponents  of  Christianity,  and  it  was 
Gamaliel  who  defended  them.  That  was 
natural,  if  at  the  beginning  the  only  belief 
that  was  generally  recognized  was  the  Messiah- 
ship  of  Jesus.  It  would  not  be  until  it  had 
become  apparent  that  this  teaching  would 
interfere  with  the  supremacy  of  the  law 
and  the  exclusiveness  of  Judaism  that  a 
Pharisee    would    find    reason    to    attack    it. 

3 


18  INTRODUCTION 

Christianity  must  have  been  known  to  St. 
Paul  before  his  conversion,  as  a  rehgion 
which  accepted  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  and 
which  placed  devotion  to  Christ  above  de- 
votion to  the  law,  and  already  showed  signs 
of  what  would  be  considered  by  the  stricter 
Jew  of  the  day  a  dangerous  latitudinarianism. 

Ill 

It  is  not  necessary,  for  our  purpose,  to  form 
any  opinion  of  the  exact  nature  of  the  event 
which  we  call  the  conversion  of  St.  Paul.  The 
three  accounts  of  it  which  we  possess  shew 
some  difference  in  detail,  but  the  leading 
characteristics  are  quite  clear  ;  while  his  own 
references  to  it  reveal  the  influence  on  his  life 
which  he  felt  that  he  had  experienced.  Nor, 
again,  is  it  necessary  to  discuss  the  psychological 
characteristics  of  the  event,  and  the  extent  to 
which  what  happened  was  subjective  or  objec- 
tive. The  important  point  for  us  is  the  change 
in  St.  Paul's  life  which  was  produced.  He 
sums  it  up  succinctly :  ''  It  pleased  God  to 
reveal  his  Son  in  me,  that  I  might  preach  him 
amongst  the  Gentiles."  It  completely  changed 
his  whole  life.  He  had  persecuted  the  Chris- 
tians because  they  had  accepted  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah.     He   now  believed  Him   to  be  the 


ST.  PAUL'S  CONVERSION         19 

Messiah  and  the  Son  of  God.  He  had  looked 
upon  their  behef  in  the  Resurrection  as  blas- 
phemy. He  now  believed  that  the  Christ  who 
had  risen  from  the  dead  was  the  living  Christ. 
He  had  thought  that  the  new  expansive  and 
liberal  doctrine  which  Stephen  had  preached 
meant  the  destruction  of  Judaism.  He  now 
realized  that  the  preaching  to  the  Gentiles 
meant  the  accomplishment  of  its  purpose.  But 
these  propositions  give  a  very  slight  idea  of  the 
complete  change  which  had  taken  place.  He 
had  had  a  tremendous  spiritual  experience. 
It  had  transformed  his  whole  being.  He  had 
been  apprehended  by  Christ  Jesus  :  to  him 
henceforth  to  live  was  Christ,  and  to  die  was 
gain.  He  counted  all  things  but  loss  for  the 
excellency  of  the  knowledge  of  Christ  Jesus. 
He  had  become  the  slave  of  Christ.  He  could 
do  all  things  through  Christ  who  strengthened 
him.  Henceforth  it  was  no  longer  he  that 
lived,  but  Christ  that  lived  in  him. 

It  is  in  the  light  of  this  spiritual  change  that 
we  must  study  St.  Paul's  teaching.  St.  Paul 
had  been  a  theologian  before  his  conversion, 
but  still  more  he  had  been  an  intensely  religious 
man.  As  a  Christian  preacher  he  had  not 
ceased  to  be  a  theologian.  He  was  a  man 
of  strong  intellectual  force ;   it  was  necessary 


20  INTRODUCTION 

that  his  reason  should  be  convinced,  and 
he  was  able  always  to  give  adequate  reasons 
for  what  he  believed.  He  remains  a  theo- 
logian, and  each  question  that  comes  before 
him  of  controversy  or  interest  he  works  out  in 
accordance  with  the  theological  principles  in 
which  he  had  been  trained ;  but  he  was  not 
primarily  either  a  theologian  or  an  apologist. 
He  was  a  man  of  intense  religious  earnestness. 
He  accepted  Christianity ;  he  believed  in 
Christ ;  he  preached  Christ  because  of  a  pro- 
found religious  experience,  because  all  that  he 
taught  was  real  to  himself 

There  are  certain  facts  and  experiences  of 
outstanding  importance  in  the  religious  history 
of  the  world.  One  of  these  is  the  conversion 
of  St.  Paul.  That  conversion  was  a  fact.  We 
know  what  St.  Paul  had  been.  We  know 
what  he  became.  We  know  what  he  accom- 
plished. We  have  in  his  letters  an  intense  and 
intimate  revelation  of  his  deepest  religious 
experience  and  inmost  convictions.  His  con- 
version exhibits  in  a  more  striking  manner  than 
almost  any  other  event  the  reality  and  power 
of  the  spiritual  forces  of  the  world.  It  is  a 
witness  of  St.  Paul's  own  strength.  It  is  still 
more  a  witness  to  the  force  and  power  of  the 
life  and  death  of  Jesus  Christ. 


CHRIST'S  COMPELLING  POWER     21 

St.  Paul  has  been  called  the  greatest  of 
Christians.  His  conversion  was  the  most 
striking  example  of  the  compelling  power  of 
Christ.  He  never  ascribes  anything  to  his 
own  effort  or  capacity.  Everything  in  his  life 
he  ascribes  to  Christ  and  the  power  of  Christ 
in  him.  He  is  always  only  a  chosen  vessel  in 
the  hands  of  the  Lord.  His  conversion  is  but 
a  witness  to  the  spiritual  force  and  power  of 
Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  whom  he 
preached. 


II 

THE  ESCHATOLOGY  OF  ST.  PAUL 

Reasons  for  order  of  treatment — A  part  of  St.  Paul's  normal 
teaching — Outlines  of  the  teaching — The  time  of  the 
Parousia — Antichrist — Sources  of  his  teaching — Its 
religious  significance — Symbolic  character — Its  per- 
manent value. 

A  RECENT  writer  has  told  us  that,  if  we  are  to 
understand  the  beginnings  of  Christianity,  we 
should  look  upon  the  teaching  of  our  Lord  and 
St.  Paul  as  episodes  in  the  history  of  Jewish 
eschatology.  The  statement  is,  of  course,  a 
paradox.  But  a  paradox  generally  contains  a 
certain  amount  of  truth,  and  this  has  the  ad- 
vantage of  drawing  our  attention  to  an  element 
in  St.  Paul's  teaching  which  is  in  a  certain 
sense  fundamental,  and  of  bringing  us  face  to 
face  with  some  interesting  problems.  We  learn 
through  it  certain  presuppositions  which  were 
part  of  St.  Paul's  mental  equipment,  and  are 
better  able  to  look  at  the  questions  before  him 
from  his  own  point  of  view.  We  learn,  also, 
something  of  the  thought  of  the  times  in  which 

22 


ST.  PAUL'S  NORMAL  PREACHING  23 

he  lived.  It  is  an  interesting  point,  also,  that 
his  eschatological  teaching  is  expounded  in  the 
two  earliest  Epistles  which  we  possess,  whilst 
in  his  other  writings  it  is  presupposed. 


The  first  point  to  be  noticed  is  that  a  doctrine 
of  the  "last  things"  was  part  of  St.  Paul's 
normal  preaching.  The  author  of  the  Acts  im- 
plies that  when  at  Thessalonica  he  taught  about 
the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.  For  it  is  related  that 
the  Apostle  was  brought  before  the  magistrates 
for  teaching  that  there  was  another  king,  one 
Jesus.^  This  corresponds  to  the  indications  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians.  You  have 
learned,  he  says,  clearly  referring  to  his  teach- 
ing when  among  them,  "  to  wait  for  his  Son 
from  heaven . . .,  even  Jesus,  which  delivereth  us 
from  the  wrath  to  come."^  They  had  received 
knowledge  which  made  it  umiecessary  to  write 
to  them  of  "  the  times  and  the  seasons.  "^  He 
had  exhorted  them  to  walk  worthy  of  God,  who 
calleth  them  to  His  own  kingdom  and  glory.^ 
His  teaching  had  been  such  that  they  expected 
that  the  end  would  come  soon,  and  felt  diffi- 
culties  as   to   what   would    happen   to   those 

1  Acts  xvii.  7.  M  Thess.  i.  10.        \^ 

»  1  Thess.  V.  1.  ■*  1  Thess.  ii.  12. 


24     ESCHATOLOGY  OF  ST.  PAUL 

who  had  ah-eady  died.^  This  conviction  of 
the  transitoriness  of  this  world  seems  to  have 
led  to  irregularities  of  conduct.  ^  Now,  teach- 
ing such  as  this  would  not  have  been  necessary 
to  the  Jew,  who  believed  in  a  final  judgement  on 
the  coming  of  the  Kingdom  ;  but  the  Gentiles 
could  not  have  understood  Christianity  unless 
they  had  learnt  at  the  same  time  the  escha- 
tological  presuppositions  of  its  teaching. 

What  were  these  presuppositions?  In  St. 
Paul's  conception  the  course  of  time  was 
divided  into  periods  called  "aeons."  Eternity 
is  spoken  of  as  "  for  aeons  of  aeons."^  The 
thought  of  God  was  conceived  in  a  time  which 
might  be  described  as  "before  the  aeons."* 
The  time  when  St.  Paul  hved  was  described 
as  the  present  age,  or  aeon,^  in  contrast  to  the 
age  which  is  to  come.^  It  is  the  evil  age.^ 
Its  characteristic  is  transitoriness.  The  fashion 
of  this  world  passeth  away.^  As  an  evil 
world,  it  is  subject  to  the  rulers  of  this  world, 
or  the  God  of  this  world— that  is,  Satan  and 

1  1  Thess.  iy.  13,  14.  ^^  2  i  Thess.  iv.  1  et  seq. 

^   els  TOi's  aiwvas  tcov  auoviov. 

^   Trpo  TU)U  al(i)vci}v.  ^   6  alCov  oTros. 

^   o  aitov  o  fxeXXctiVf  ipyoaevos. 

ixai.  1.  4<,  Tov  auovos  tov  cvccttiotos  irovi^pov. 
^   1     Cor.    vii.    .31,    irapdyei.    yap     rh     a-y?ijLa    tov    Kocrfiov 

TOVTOV. 


THE  PAROUSIA  25 

the  evil  spirits.^  But  yet  Satan  is  not  supreme, 
for  God  is  King  of  the  ages,^  and  there  is  a 
Divine  purpose  running  through  all  time. 

The  end  of  this  present  age,  or,  as  it  is 
called,  this  world,  will  come  shortly.  The 
time  when  it  comes  is  described  as  "  the  day," 
or  the  "day  of  the  Lord."^  From  one  point 
of  view  it  is  the  last  day,  for  it  ends  the  present 
order  of  things.  From  another  it  is  the  day 
of  redemption.^  It  is  the  Parousia^ — the 
Advent  of  the  Son  of  God.  "  The  Lord  him- 
self shall  descend  from  heaven,  with  a  shout, 
with  the  voice  of  the  archangel,  and  with  the 
trump  of  God  :  and  the  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise 
first :  then  we  that  are  alive  and  remain  shall  be 
caught  up  together  with  them  in  the  clouds, 
to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air."^  '*  We  shall  not 
all  sleep,  but  we  shall  all  be  changed,  in  a 
moment,  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye,  at  the  last 
trump ;  for  the  trumpet  shall  sound,  and  the 
dead  shall  be  raised  incorruptible,  and  we  shall 
be  changed."^  It  is  also  the  day  of  judge- 
ment, when  God  shall  judge  the  secrets  of  all 
men.^      For   we    shall    all    stand    before   the 

1  1  Cor.  ii.  6,  8  ;  cf.  Eph.  vi.  12. 

2  1  Tim.  i.  17.  3  1  Thess.  v.  2,  4. 
4  Eph.  iv.  SO.  5  I  Thess.  ii.  19. 

6  1  Thess.  iv.  l6,  17.  ^  1  Cor.  xv.  51,  52. 

s  Rom.  ii.  l6. 


26     ESCHATOLOGY  OF  ST.  PAUL 

judgement-seat  of  God.  Each  of  us  shall  give 
an  account  of  himself  to  God.^  "  We  must  all 
be  made  manifest  before  the  judgement-seat  of 
Christ ;  that  each  one  may  receive  the  things 
done  in  the  body  in  accordance  with  what  he  has 
done,  whether  it  be  good  or  bad."^  It  is  a  day 
of  wrath  and  revelation,^  for  the  wrath  of  God 
is  revealed  from  heaven  against  all  ungodli- 
ness and  unrighteousness  of  man.^  The  wrath 
of  God  Cometh  upon  the  sons  of  disobedience.*'' 
It  is  therefore  a  day  which  tests  the  quality 
of  each  man's  work.  The  fire  of  the  great 
catastrophe  shall  come  and  prove  each  man's 
work  of  what  sort  it  is.^  It  is  therefore  a  day 
of  vengeance  for  those  who  know  not  God, 
and  have  not  obeyed  the  Gospel  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  They  shall  suffer  punishment, 
even  eternal  destruction  from  the  face  of  the 
Lord  and  from  the  glory  of  His  might. ^  On 
the  other  hand,  it  is  a  day  of  redemption^ — 
the  day  of  the  foundation  of  the  kingdom. 
Henceforth  the  righteous  shall  be  ever  with 
the  Lord.^  It  means,  therefore,  rest,  peace, 
salvation,  everlasting  union  with  Christ. 

1  Rom.  xiv.  10,  12.  ^2  Cor.  v.  10. 

3  Rom.  ii.  5.  ^  Rom.  i.  18. 

5  Eph.  V.  6,  M  Cor.  iii.  13. 

7  2  Thess.  i.  8,  9.  ^  Eph.  iv.  30. 
9  1  Thess.  iv.  17. 


THE  TIME  OF  THE  PAROUSIA     27 

II 

But  when  is  this  to  come  ?  There  is  no 
doubt  that  St.  Paul  expected  the  Parousia 
soon,  that  he  thought  that  it  would  come  in 
his  own  lifetime ;  and  although  as  he  grew 
older  he  was  less  confident,  yet  to  the  end 
of  his  life  he  hoped  that  this  might  be  the  case. 
In  1  Thessalonians  his  language  is  confident, 
"  The  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first,"  but  "  we 
that  are  alive,  that  are  left,  shall  together  with 
them  be  caught  up  in  the  clouds  to  meet  the 
Lord  in  the  air."^  In  1  Corinthians  a  new 
thought  appears,  that  of  the  "spiritual  body." 
The  body  that  is  buried  will  rise  again  in 
incorruption.  Those  who  at  the  time  of  the 
coming  are  still  alive  will  undergo  the  same 
transformation.  "  We  shall  not  all  sleep,  but 
we  shall  all  be  changed,  in  a  moment,  in  the 
twinkling  of  an  eye,  at  the  last  trump."  ^  The 
corruptible  will  put  on  incorruption ;  the 
mortal,  immortality.  In  2  Corinthians  this 
thought  is  further  worked  out.  St.  Paul  has 
been  in  great  danger  of  his  life.  He  is  less 
confident  that  he  will  live  until  the  Lord 
comes.  But  he  knows  that  He  who  raised  up 
the  Lord  Jesus  will  raise  up  us  also  with  Jesus.  ^ 

1  1  Thess.  iv.  l6,  17.  ^  I  Cor.  xv.  51,  52. 

3  2  Cor.  iv,  14. 


28     ESCHATOLOGY  OF  ST.  PAUL 

But  the  transformation  which  he  described 
in  the  first  Epistle  is,  he  feels,  already  working. 
He  speaks  of  the  earthly  house  of  our  taber- 
nacle being  dissolved.  He  speaks,  again,  of 
a  building  from  God  eternal  in  the  heavens. 
He  is  longing  to  be  clothed  upon  w^ith  our 
habitation  which  is  from  heaven,  that  mortality 
may  be  swallowed  up  of  life.^  The  language 
is  compatible  either  with  the  expectation  of 
immediate  death  or  with  hopes  of  the  Coming. 
But  it  is  the  confidence  of  a  future  after  death 
and  of  judgement  rather  than  the  immediate 
Coming  of  the  Lord  which  is  in  his  mind. 

Although  in  the  next  group  of  Epistles  the 
eschatological  element  is  less  prominent,  and 
other  thoughts  occupy  St.  Paul's  mind,  yet  it 
still  remains  the  framework  in  which  his  ideas 
are  set.  He  reminds  the  Philippians  that  the 
Lord  is  at  hand^ ;  but,  as  regards  himself,  his 
position  as  prisoner  makes  it  possible  that  he 
may  be  put  to  death,  and  he  expresses  his 
desire  to  depart  and  be  with  Christ,  which  is 
far  better.^  In  Colossians  and  Ephesians  we 
find  nicidental  references  to  the  kingdom,^  the 
Divine  wrath,^  the  day  of  redemption,^  the  evil 

1  2  Cor.  V.  1-4.  "^  Phil.  iv.  5. 

3  Phil.  i.  23.  '^  Eph.  v.  5. 

5  Col.  iii.  6 ;  Eph.  v.  6.  ♦^  Eph.  iv.  30. 


THE  LAST  TIMES  29 

day.^  But  undoubtedly,  under  the  shadow  of 
his  mherited  eschatology,  another  thought  has 
been  growing  up  in  St.  Paul's  mind — not, 
indeed,  as  yet  fully  grasped,  but  destined 
ultimately  to  provide  a  substitute  for  the  im- 
mediate hope  of  the  Parousia — the  universal 
kingdom  of  Christ. 

When  we  turn  to  the  final  group  of  Epistles, 
we  seem  to  return  also  to  the  thought  of  the 
earliest  period.  These  are  the  last  times. ^  The 
falling  away  from  truth  and  the  rise  of  heresy 
are  what  might  be  expected  in  these  evil  days 
before  the  Messiah  comes.  Timothy  is  to 
keep  the  commandment  without  spot  until 
the  appearing  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.^"'  We 
are  to  live  soberly,  righteously,  and  godly,  in 
this  present  world,  looking  for  the  blessed  hope 
and  the  glorious  appearing  of  our  great  God 
and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.*  Most  remark- 
able is  the  last  Epistle  of  all.  The  Apostle 
speaks  of  the  last  days  when  grievous  times 
shall  come,  and  clearly  implies  that  they  are 
already  present.  He  warns  Timothy  that 
these  times  will  still  be  worse.  He  speaks, 
indeed,  as  if  his  own  death  is  to  come  shortly : 
"  I    am  already  being  offered,  and  the  time 

1  Eph.  vi.  13.  2  2  Tim.  iii.  1. 

3  1  Tim.  vi.  14.  ^  Titus  ii.  12,  13. 


30     ESCHATOLOGY  OF  ST.  PAUL 

of  my  departure  is  at  hand.  .  .  .  There  is 
laid  up  for  me  the  crown  of  righteousness, 
which  the  Lord,  the  righteous  judge,  shall  give 
to  me  at  that  day  :  and  not  to  me  only,  but  unto 
all  them  also  that  love  his  appearing.  "^^  Then 
directly  afterwards  there  seems  to  be  a  half- 
feeling  that  he  may  still  live  for  the  Parousia. 
"  The  Lord  will  deliver  me  from  every  evil 
work,  and  will  preserve  me  unto  his  heavenly 
kingdom.  "2 

This  survey  will  shew  that  substantially 
St.  Paul's  belief  remains  unchanged  through- 
out. There  is  only  a  slight  shifting  of  the 
point  of  view.  At  the  beginning  the  end  is 
looked  upon  as  imminent,  and  he  expects  to 
live  until  it  comes.  Always  it  is  at  hand, 
until,  when  the  perils  of  this  life  become 
greater,  he  himself  doubts  whether  he  will 
live  for  it.  He  contemplates  the  growth  of 
the  Church,  and  its  spread  in  the  world  be- 
comes to  him  a  more  prominent  thought  than 
the  final  catastrophe.  At  the  end  of  his  life 
he  still  looks  for  it  as  imminent.  He  still 
feels  that  he  may  live  to  see  it,  but  he  is 
convinced  that,  whether  he  live  or  whether  he 
die,  it  will  always  be  in  the  Lord.  But,  al- 
though the  end  may  come  soon,  the  time  is  not 

1  2  Tim.  iv.  6-8.  2  2  Tim.  iv.  18. 


ANTICHRIST  31 

yet.  It  will  come  suddenly,  as  a  thief  in  the 
night,  but  before  it  comes  there  will  be  a  great 
falling  away.  The  man  of  sin,  the  son  of 
perdition — that  is,  Antichrist — will  be  revealed. 
This  mystery  of  iniquity  is  already  working, 
but  there  is  a  power  restraining  it.  Finally 
the  lawless  one  shall  be  revealed,  whom  the 
Lord  shall  consume  with  the  breath  of  His 
mouth,  and  shall  destroy  by  the  manifestation 
of  his  presence.^  This  expectation,  which  we 
learn  from  2  Thessalonians — one  of  the  earliest 
Epistles — corresponds  with  the  situation  as 
St.  Paul  conceived  it  at  the  close  of  his  life. 
The  outburst  of  wickedness  which,  ten  years 
before,  he  had  expected  had  now  come.  Men 
were  everywhere  falling  away  from  the  faith. 
Persecution  had  arisen.  It  was  a  sure  sign 
that  the  end  was  at  hand. 

Ill 

What  was  the  source  and  origin  of  this 
teaching?  It  is  recognized  that  it  was  part 
of  the  ordinary  and  popular  religion  of  the 
day.  It  had  its  roots  in  Old  Testament 
prophecy.  It  is  developed  in  the  Book  of 
Daniel  and  in  the  series  of  Apocalyptic  writings 
which  succeed  that  work.     It  was  the  normal 

1  2  These,  ii.  3-10. 


32     ESCHATOLOGY  OF  ST.  PAUL 

literary  method  for  the  expression  of  rehgion 
in  the  time  of  our  Lord.  But  while  in  its 
main  outline  it  was  derived  from  Judaism,  it 
had  under  Christian  influence  been  developed 
and  was  being  transformed.  If  we  study  the 
teaching  of  the  twenty-fourth  chapter  of  St. 
Matthew,  and  again  that  of  the  Apocalypse,  we 
shall  find  all  the  different  elements  of  St.  Paul's 
conception  clearly  present.  We  have  the  same 
expectation  of  the  woes  of  the  Messiah  and  the 
rise  of  false  teaching,  of  the  suddenness  of  the 
end,  coming  like  a  thief  in  the  night  or  like 
a  woman  in  her  travail.  There  runs  through 
the  Gospels,  as  through  the  other  books  of  the 
New  Testament,  the  same  curious  combination 
of  two  apparently  inconsistent  beliefs,  the  near- 
ness and  yet  the  remoteness  of  the  end.  It 
must  be  clear,  we  think,  that  elements  of 
Christian  teaching  which  are  shared  by  such 
different  works  as  the  Apocalypse,  the  Gospel 
of  St.  Matthew  and  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  and 
are  presupposed  throughout  the  New  Testa- 
ment, were  not  derived  from  St.  Paul.  Our 
Lord  had  throughout  taught  in  tlie  current 
language  of  apocalyptic  expectation ;  but  He 
was  always  transforming  the  ideas  while  He  was 
using  the  language,  and  what  He  did  was  done 
also  by  His  followers.     In  St.  Paul  we  see  the 


THE  RESURRECTION  BODY     38 

building  up  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  im- 
mortality out  of  Jewish  eschatology  ;  and  when 
we  come  to  what  we  may  describe  as  the  more 
definitely  Christian  mode  of  expression,  it  is 
not  necessary  to  go  outside  to  find  its  source. 
It  is  true,  indeed,  that  the  Book  of  Wisdom 
has  supplied  some  of  the  language  which  is 
used  in  2  Corinthians ;  but  the  thoughts  and 
ideas  of  that  Epistle  are  Pauline  and  Christian. 
They  grow  out  of  the  fundamental  conviction 
of  St.  Paul  that  his  life  was  a  life  in  Christ ; 
that  he  was  already  being  transformed  by  the 
power  of  the  Spirit,  and  that  thus  our  vile 
body  may  be  fashioned  like  unto  His  glorious 
Body.  A  transformation  of  the  life  of  the 
Christian  which  begins  in  this  world  will  be 
completed  hereafter.  The  Hfe  in  the  Spirit 
on  earth  is  the  pledge  and  guarantee  of  the 
life  in  the  Spirit  hereafter. 

IV 

There  are  certain  other  problems  suggested 
by  this  primitive  Christian  eschatology.  The 
first  is  that  it  is  always  difficult  to  say  how 
much  of  it  is  figurative,  and  how  much  we  are 
intended  to  take  literally.  It  is  quite  certain 
that  there  is  a  considerable  amount  which  was 
never  intended  to  be  more  than  symbolical. 

5 


34     ESCHATOLOGY  OF  ST.  PAUL 

Take,  for  example,  the  various  visions  of  the 
succession  of  the  kingdoms  of  this  world  in 
the  Book  of  Daniel.     Clearly  there  the  great 
image,  the  four  beasts,  the  ram,  and  the  he- 
goat,  are  all  purely  symbolical.     Or  take  the 
well-known  passage  of  the  Christian  armour 
at  the  end  of  Ephesians.     Here  the  Christian 
is  called  on  to  prepare  for  the  evil  day,  the 
great  day  when  the  forces  of  Antichrist  shall 
be  loosed — when  all  the  powers  of  darkness 
shall   be   arrayed  against  him.     In   order  to 
meet  these  attacks  he  is  bidden  to  put  on  the 
whole  armour  of  God.     This   passage   is,  in 
fact,  both   eschatological  and   demonological. 
But  how  much  do  these  two  forms  of  thought 
contribute  except   language  ?     The  Christian 
armour  is   clearly  symbolical.     Are   not  the 
*'  evil  day  "  and  the  "  demons  "  also  symbolical  ? 
When '  we  read   the   passage   now  we   think 
only    of  the    spiritual    warfare    which    every 
good  man  must  wage.      How  far  did  St.  Paul 
himself  take  the  words  quite  literally  ?     How 
far  was  he  using  them  to  express  his  spiritual 
teaching    in    well  -  known    language  ?     With 
examples   such   as   these   before   us,  there   is 
no  need  to  be  too  ready  to  imagine  that  all 
this   teaching  must  necessarily  be  interpreted 
in  a  matter-of-fact  way.     The  eschatology  of 


ST.  PAUL'S  SYMBOLISM  35 

the  New  Testament  puts  before  us  certain 
great  truths — judgement,  resurrection,  the 
recompense  of  good  and  evil,  the  final 
triumph  of  Divine  justice.  All  these  it 
teaches  in  the  language  of  symbolism.  That 
symbolic  language  has  become  the  inheri- 
tance of  the  Christian  Church.  How  much 
do  we  ever  take  it  literally  ourselves,  and 
have  we  any  reason  for  thinking  that  St.  Paul 
intended  us  to  take  it  invariably  in  a  crudely 
literal  and  matter-of-fact  manner  ? 

The  second  point  I  would  notice  about  this 
eschatology  is  that  it  is  based  upon  two 
fundamental  facts  :  the  transiency  of  human 
life  and  the  transiency  of  human  society.  It 
became  the  current  teaching  just  at  the  time 
when,  under  the  hammer  of  the  Roman  power, 
all  the  nations  of  the  East  were  in  a  state  of 
dissolution ;  when  the  one  thought  that  was 
necessarily  impressed  upon  men's  minds  was 
the  passing  away  of  all  settled  earthly  land- 
marks ;  when  empire  had  seemed  to  succeed 
empire  and  conqueror  conqueror ;  when  the 
one  lesson  that  the  outlook  on  the  world's 
history  seemed  to  teach  was  that  the  fashion 
of  this  world  passeth  away.  The  apparent 
permanency  of  the  political  conditions  under 
which  we   live   at  the   present  day  conceals 


36     ESCHATOLOGY  OF  ST.  PAUL 

from  us  how  true  is  this  aspect  of  earthly  hfe, 
and  makes  us  forget  that  the  transient 
character  of  human  affairs  which  is  the  pre- 
supposition of  this  eschatological  teaching  is 
real.  If  not  only  the  life  of  the  individual 
here  is  very  short,  but  the  existent  conditions 
of  human  society  are  equally  transitory,  so 
that  human  work  and  labour  are  of  little  profit ; 
if  the  great  city  that  we  have  built,  the  kingdom 
we  have  founded,  the  temples  we  have  erected, 
will  all  pass  away — and  who  can  doubt  that  it 
is  so  ? — we  naturally  turn  our  minds  to  what  is 
really  permanent.  That  is  the  fundamental 
thought  of  eschatology.  When  the  fashion  of 
this  world  passes  away,  there  is  a  Kingdom  of 
Heaven  for  those  who  have  been  followers  of 
Christ.  Things  which  are  seen  are  temporal ;  the 
things  which  are  not  seen  are  eternal.  Above 
the  world,  with  all  its  changes,  there  is  the 
unchanging  figure  of  God.  These  are  funda- 
mental spiritual  truths,  and  it  is  these  which 
underlie  all  the  eschatological  teaching, 
whether  Jewish  or  Christian,  of  the  early 
centuries.  It  is  not  an  exaggeration,  in 
fact,  to  say  that  eschatology  means  religion. 
Rationalist  critics  have  always  attempted  to 
ignore  all  such  elements  when  they  have  re- 
constructed   the    teaching    of    the    Gospel. 


VALUE  OF  ESCHATOLOGY      37 

They  would  turn  the  teaching  of  our  Lord 
into  an  ethical  system,  and  make  Christianity 
a  philosophical  school.  Our  attention  has 
once  more  been  drawn  somewhat  violently 
to  the  eschatological  elements  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  we  are  reminded  thus  of 
its  religious  teaching.  Christianity  is  not 
primarily  a  rule  of  life  or  a  system  of  philos- 
ophy, but  a  religion  ;  and  religion  starts  with 
a  fundamental  belief  in  God,  in  man's  respon- 
sibility to  God,  in  faith  and  hope,  in  judgement 
and  eternal  life,  in  the  final  establishment  of 
the  Kingdom  of  Christ.  The  symbolism  of 
the  first  century  has  largely  passed  away, 
although  we  use  its  language  in  Christian 
poetry  without  any  misgivings.  The  funda- 
mental beliefs  in  resurrection,  immortality,  in 
judgement  and  salvation,  which  we  are  taught 
through  it,  have  become  the  permanent  pos- 
session of  the  Christian  Church. 


I 


Ill 

ST.  PAUL'S  CHRISTOLOGY— THE  PERSON 
OF  CHRIST 

The  Jewish  expectation — St.  Paul's  conception — Historical 
development — Analysis  of  his  teaching — The  earthly 
life — The  Divine  nature — The  source  of  his  belief — 
The  teaching  of  the  Church — The  life  of  Christ. 

The  fundamental  fact  in  relation  to  St  Paul's 
conversion  and  the  central  point  of  his  teaching 
were  the  acceptance  of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah. 
"  Paul  reasoned  with  them  out  of  the  scrip- 
tures, openly  alleging  that  Messiah  must  needs 
have  suffered,  and  risen  again  from  the  dead ; 
and  that  this  Jesus,  whom  I  preach  unto  you, 
is  Messiah. "1  "Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus, 
and  thou  shalt  be  saved.  "^  "  If  thou  shalt 
confess  with  thy  mouth  Jesus  as  Lord,  and 
shalt  believe  in  thine  heart  that  God  hath 
raised  him  from  the  dead,  thou  shalt  be  saved, "^ 
This  acceptance  of  Jesus  as  Messiah  meant  that 
the  Christian  teaching  of  St.  Paul  was  a  natural 
development  of  his  Jewish  faith.     Just  as  part 

1  Acts  xvii.  2-3.  ^  Acts  xvi.  31.  3  Rom.  x.  9. 


THE  JEWISH  MESSIAH  39 

of  the  religion  in  which  he  had  been  brought 
up  had  been  the  expectation  of  a  final  catas- 
trophe— judgement  to  come  and  the  establish- 
ment of  the  kingdom — so  he  looked  for,  as 
did  his  contemporaries,  the  coming  of  the 
Messiah. 

That  hope  amongst  the  Jews  probably  took 
one  of  two  forms.  One  was  the  rise  of  a 
Prince  of  the  House  of  David,  who,  at  the 
head  of  the  armies  of  Israel,  would  defeat  the 
hated  heathen  and  restore  again  the  kingdom 
to  Israel.  It  is  this  form  of  the  Messianic 
hope  which  is  expressed  in  a  well-known 
passage  of  the  Psalms  of  Solomon :  "  Behold, 
O  Lord,  and  raise  up  unto  them  their  king, 
the  son  of  David,  in  the  time  which  thou, 
O  God,  knowest,  that  he  may  reign  over  Israel 
thy  servant ;  and  gird  him  with  strength  that 
he  may  break  in  pieces  them  that  rule  un- 
justly. .  .  .  He  shall  judge  the  nations  and 
the  peoples  with  the  wisdom  of  his  righteous- 
ness ;  and  he  shall  possess  the  nations  of  the 
heathen  to  serve  him  beneath  his  yoke ;  and 
he  shall  glorify  the  Lord  in  a  place  to  be  seen 
of  the  whole  earth ;  and  he  shall  purge  Jerusalem 
and  make  it  holy  even  as  it  was  in  the  days  of 
old,  so  that  the  nations  may  come  from  the 
ends  of  the  earth  to  see  his  glory,  bringing  as 


40       ST.  PAUL'S  CHRISTOLOGY 

gifts  her  sons  that  had  fainted.  ...  And 
there  shall  be  no  iniquity  in  his  days  in  their 
midst,  for  all  shall  be  holy,  and  their  king  is 
the  Lord  Messiah." ^ 

No  doubt  some  such  hope  as  this  was  the 
normal  form  which  Messianic  expectation  took 
amongst  the  people  of  Palestine.  It  was  hopes 
like  these  that  from  time  to  time  inspired 
revolts  against  the  Roman  Empire,  and  that 
encouraged  all  the  various  false  Messiahs  that 
arose.  This  conception,  too,  has  left  its  im- 
press, as  we  can  recognize,  on  various  episodes 
in  the  Gospels.  But  this  would  not  have  been 
the  form  that  St.  Paul's  hopes  took.  He  was 
not  a  Palestinian  Jew ;  neither  the  Temple 
worship  nor  the  sanctity  of  the  Holy  Land 
would  appeal  to  him  so  strongly.  His  concep- 
tions were  much  more  of  a  definitely  religious 
character.  It  would,  therefore,  be  the  Christ 
of  religion  that  he  would  expect.  The  exact 
form  which  this  expectation  took  we  cannot,  of 
course,  say.  A  religious  hope  is  not  generally 
put  in  exact  theological  language,  and  the 
details  of  the  picture  were  no  doubt  filled  in 
differently  by  different  minds ;  but  no  doubt 
it  was  the  apocalyptic  Messiah  that  St.  Paul 

1  "  Psalms  of  Solomon/'  translated  by  James  and  Ryle, 
xvii.  23-36. 


THE  APOCALYPTIC  MESSIAH     41 

expected.  One  form  of  this  is  well  expressed 
in  the  summary  which  Dr.  Charles  gives  us 
of  the  second  section  of  the  Book  of  Enoch 
"  But  the  oppression  of  the  kings  and  the 
mighty  will  not  continue  for  ever.  Suddenly 
the  Head  of  Days  will  appear,  and  with  him 
the  Son  of  Man,  to  execute  judgement  upon  all 
alike — on  the  righteous  and  the  wicked,  on 
angel  and  on  man.  And  to  this  end  there 
will  be  a  resurrection  of  all  Israel ;  the  books 
of  the  living  will  be  opened  ;  all  judgement  will 
be  committed  unto  the  Son  of  Man  ;  the  Son 
of  Man  will  possess  universal  dominion,  and 
sit  on  the  throne  of  his  glory,  which  is  likewise 
God's  throne.  He  will  judge  the  holy  angels 
and  the  fallen  angels,  the  righteous  upon  earth 
and  the  sinners ;  but  particularly  those  who 
oppress  his  saints,  the  kings  and  the  mighty 
and  those  who  possess  the  earth.  All  are 
judged  according  to  their  deeds,  for  their  deeds 
are  weighed  in  the  balance.  The  fallen  angels 
are  cast  into  a  fiery  furnace.  The  kings  and 
the  mighty  confess  their  sins  and  pray  for 
forgiveness,  but  in  vain ;  and  are  given  into 
the  hands  of  the  righteous  ;  and  their  destruc- 
tion will  furnish  a  spectacle  to  the  righteous 
as  they  burn  and  vanish  for  ever  out  of  sight, 
to  be  tortured  in  Gehenna  by  the  angels  of 


42       ST.  PAULAS  CHRISTOLOGY 

punishment.  The  remaining  sinners  and  god- 
less will  be  driven  from  off  the  face  of  the 
earth.  The  Son  of  Man  will  slay  them  with 
the  word  of  his  mouth.  Sin  and  wrongdoing 
will  be  banished  from  the  earth ;  and  heaven 
and  earth  will  be  transformed  and  the  righteous 
and  elect  will  have  their  mansions  therein ;  and 
the  light  of  the  Lord  of  Spirits  will  shine  upon 
them  ;  they  will  live  in  the  light  of  eternal  life. 
The  Elect  One  will  dwell  amongst  them."^ 

It  will  become  apparent  how  far  St.  Paul's 
ultimate  conception  resembled  this,  and  how 
far  it  differed  from  it.  If  such  was  St.  Paul's 
starting-point,  and  there  is  no  reason  for  doubt- 
ing that  it  was  something  of  this  character,  his 
conversion  meant  not  only  that  he  accepted 
Jesus  as  the  JNIessiah,  but  that  his  concep- 
tion of  the  work  and  purpose  and  person  of 
the  Messiah  underwent  a  remarkable  trans- 
formation. 

I 

It  will  be  convenient  first  to  examine  the 
Epistles  in  chronological  order.  We  shall  thus 
obtain  a  succinct  view  of  St.  Paul's  teaching, 
and  shall  be  able  to  decide  how  far  there  was 
any  development  in  his  lifetime. 

The  evidence  of  the  first  group  is  particularly 
1  Charles,  ''The  Book  of  Enoch,"  p.  109. 


THE  THESSALONIAN  EPISTLES     43 

interesting,  both  because  in  some  ways  it  is 
nearest  to  the  apocalyptic  conception  we  have 
just  sketched,  and  because  it  is  impHcit  for 
the  most  part  rather  than  expUcit.  Incidental 
references  imply  often  much  more  fundamental 
thought  than  dogmatic  constructions.  Jesus  in 
these  Epistles  is  the  Lord,  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God.  He  is  associated  with  the  Father  on  terms 
of  apparent  equality  ;  as  the  Source,  with  Him, 
of  grace  and  peace  ;  with  the  Father  He  rules 
our  life,  our  faith  ;  our  love  and  our  hope  alike 
look  to  Him  as  to  the  Father.^  He  had  been 
killed  by  the  Jews,  but  God  had  raised  Him 
up  ;  He  delivereth  us  from  the  wrath  which  is 
to  come ;  He  shall  come  again  "  revealed  from 
heaven  with  his  mighty  angels " ;  He  shall 
destroy  the  wicked  and  reward  the  good ; 
He  shall  be  glorified  with  His  saints,  and  we 
shall  be  ever  with  Him.^  Even  now  there 
is  the  closest  fellowship  between  us  and  Him. 
We  are  His  followers,  and  He  is  our  Example. 
The  Churches  are  in  Christ  Jesus.  Our  life  is 
to  stand  fast  in  the  Lord.  Whether  we  wake 
or  sleep,  we  live  with  Him.  All  Christian  rule 
and  authority  is  in  His  name.^    If  we  consider 

1  1  Thess.  i.  1,  3,  iii.  11  ;  2  Thess.  i.  1,2. 

2  1  Thess.  ii.  15,  i.  10,  iv.  l6;  2  Thess.  i.  7,  ii.  8. 

3  1  Thess.  i.  6,  ii.  14,  v.  10 ;  2  J'hess.  iii.  6,  12. 


44       ST.  PAUL'S  CHRISTOLOGY 

the  meaning  of  this  language  carefully,  we 
shall  be  convinced  that,  although  formal 
definition  is  absent,  it  is  difficult  to  explain 
it  by  the  use  of  any  other  phrase  than  that  of 
saying  that  Christ  is  Divine.  He  is  not  only 
a  supernatural  Christ,  but  one  who  is  spoken 
of  in  a  way  which  seems  to  imply  equality 
with  the  Father.  We  shall  find  later  in 
St.  Paul's  life  a  more  fully  developed  theology, 
but  we  shall  find  nothing  which  implies  greater 
dignity  or  power  than  these  incidental  refer- 
ences in  the  earliest  Epistles. 

The  great  theme  of  the  second  group  of  the 
Epistles  is  the  work  of  Christ  for  our  salvation. 
It  may  reasonably  be  held  that  St.  Paul's  con- 
ception of  what  Christ  had  done,  and  his  com- 
prehension of  tlie  full  significance  of  His  death, 
shews  some  development.  But  for  us  at  the 
moment  the  important  point  is  that,  if  St.  Paul 
could  ascribe  such  power  to  Christ  as  he  does, 
he  must  also  ascribe  to  Him  a  personality 
which  harmonizes  with  what  He  could  accom- 
plish. This  may  be  summed  up  in  the  words, 
"  God  was  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  unto 
himself.  "1  Other  particular  passages  may  be 
/quoted.  There  is  a  very  clear  statement  of 
ythe  pre-existence  of  Christ  as  Son :    **  God  sent 

1  2  Cor.  V.  19. 


COLOSSIANS  45 

forth  his  Son."^  He  is  described  as  "  the  image 
of  God."  ^  In  contrast  to  Adam,  who  was 
from  the  earth  earthy,  "  the  second  man  is  of 
heaven."^  The  intimate  connection,  also,  be- 
tween Christ  and  the  Church  is  further  worked 
out  in  the  thought  that  the  Church  is  the  Body 
of  Christ :  "  Ye  are  the  body  of  Christ,  and 
members  in  particular."^ 

The  most  explicit  Christological  develop- 
ment takes  place  in  the  third  group.  We  find 
it  first  in  a  well-known  passage  in  Philip- 
pians  which  speaks  of  Christ's  pre-existence  in 
the  essential  nature  of  God,  and  of  His  taking 
upon  Himself  the  essential  nature  of  man,  of 
His  death  and  His  final  triumph.^  In  the 
Epistle  to  the  Colossians  it  becomes  still 
more  explicit.  Clearly  there  was  some  teach- 
ing prevailing  which  tended  to  depreciate  the 
conception  of  Christ,  which  looked  upon  Him 
simply  as  one  of  the  angels,  and  considered 
Him  to  be  among  created  beings.  Hence  it 
became  necessary  for  St.  Paul  to  state  quite 
definitely  what  he  thought,  and  this  he  does  in 
a  well-known  passage  the  significance  of  which 
is  summed  up  for  us  in  the  following  para- 
phrase of  Bishop  Lightfoot : 

1  Gal.  iv.  4.  2  2  Cor.  iv.  4.         ^  I  Cor.  xv.  47. 

4  1  Cor.  xii.  27.  ^  Phil.  ii.  6-11. 


46       ST.  PAUL'S  CHRISTOLOGY 

"He  is  the  perfect  image,  the  visible 
representation,  of  the  unseen  God.  He  is 
the  Firstborn,  the  absolute  Heir  of  the 
Father,  begotten  before  the  ages ;  the  Lord 
of  the  Universe  by  virtue  of  primogeniture, 
and  by  virtue  also  of  creative  agency.  For  in 
and  through  Him  the  whole  world  was  created, 
things  in  heaven  and  things  on  earth,  things 
visible  to  the  outer  eye  and  things  cognizable 
by  the  inward  perception.  His  supremacy  is 
absolute  and  universal.  All  powers  in  heaven 
and  earth  are  subject  to  Him.  This  subjection 
extends  even  to  the  most  exalted  and  most 
potent  of  angelic  beings,  whether  they  be  called 
Thrones  or  Dominations  or  Princedoms  or 
Powers  or  whatever  title  of  dignity  men  may 
confer  upon  them.  Yes  :  He  is  first  and  He 
is  last.  Through  Him,  as  the  mediatorial  Word, 
the  universe  has  been  created  ;  and  unto  Him, 
as  the  final  goal,  it  is  tending.  In  Him  is  no 
before  or  after.  He  is  pre-existent  and  self- 
existent  before  all  the  worlds.  And  in  Him, 
as  the  binding  and  sustaining  power,  universal 
nature  coheres  and  consists."^ 

It  may  be  noticed  how  in  this  description 
of  Christ  there  is  one  point  brought  promi- 
nently out  on  which  we  have  had  no  insistence 

1  Lightfoot,  ad  Col.  i.  15-17;  "  Colossians,"  ed.  2,  p.  144. 


CHRIST  AND  THE  CHURCH     47 

in  the  earlier  letters — what  we  may  describe 
as  His  cosmic  significance.  He  is  both  the 
Agent  of  creation  and  the  Sustainer  of  the 
universe.  But  even  here,  although  the  thought 
is  worked  out  more  elaborately,  there  is 
nothing  absolutely  new.  St.  Paul  had  spoken 
of  the  "one  Lord,  Jesus  Christ,  through 
whom  are  all  things."^  He  had  spoken  of 
Him  again  as  the  "  Image  of  God."  So  that 
the  development  of  thought,  if  there  is  such  in 
the  Colossians,  does  not  add  new  ideas. 

There  are  other  points  in  St.  Paul's  con- 
ception of  Christ  which  are  brought  out  in 
these  Epistles.  The  relation  of  Christ  to  the 
Church  which  we  find  in  1  Corinthians  we 
find  here  taught  much  more  fully,  but  with 
the  metaphor  somewhat  changed.  There  the 
Church  was  the  whole  Body,  which  built  up 
the  Christ.  Here  the  Church  is  the  Body 
of  which  Christ  is  the  Head.^  Even  more 
striking  is  another  expression  which  occurs 
in  these  Epistles :  "  In  him " — that  is,  in 
Christ  —  '*all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead 
dwells."^  Parallel  to  this  we  have  the  state- 
ment that  it  is  the  Church  which  is  the  fulness 
of  Christ,  "  the  fulness  of  him  who  all  in  all  is 

1  1  Cor.  viii.  6.  2  Eph.  i.  22-23. 

3  Col.  i.  19. 


48       ST.  PAUL'S  CHRISTOLOGY 

being  fulfilled."^  Then  there  is  another  idea 
which  has  already  occurred  in  1  Corinthians, 
but  is  found  here  in  a  more  developed  form. 
In  1  Corinthians  everything  is  represented  as 
being  included  in  Christ.  Here  it  is  put  in 
the  form  that  all  things  are  summed  up  in 
Him :  '' '  It  is  God's  good  pleasure  '  to  gather 
up  in  one  all  things  in  Christ,  both  things 
which  are  in  the  heavens  and  things  which  are 
upon  the  earth.  "^  All  things  are  summed  up  in 
Christ,  and  the  Christ  does  not  attain  His  full 
completeness  except  in  His  mystical  union  with 
the  Church. 

When  we  pass  from  these  Epistles  to  the 
Pastorals,  there  might  appear  to  be  something 
of  a  change  from  this  lofty  tone  ;  but  any 
such  change  is  only  the  inevitable  result  of 
the  subject-matter.  After  all,  the  concerns  of 
the  ordinary  life  of  the  Church  have  to  be 
remembered.  They  are  as  necessary  as  theo- 
logical conceptions,  and  we  soon  find  that  what 
these  Epistles  are  really  doing  is  applying  the 
lofty  thoughts  with  which  St.  Paul's  mind  was 
stored  to  the  conditions  under  which  the 
Church  was  working.  The  incidental  allusions 
we  find  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles  to  the  work 
and  dignity  of  Christ  would  not  be  possible 

1  Eph.  i.  23.  2  Eph.  i.  9.10. 


CHRIST  IN  THE  PASTORALS     49 

unless  there  was  behind  it  a  Christology  as  rich 
as  that  we  have  sketched.  The  theology,  in 
fact,  of  the  great  Epistles  is  assumed.  "  Christ 
Jesus  came  into  the  world  to  save  sinners."^ 
"There  is  one  mediator  between  God  and 
men,  himself  man,  Christ  Jesus,  who  gave 
himself  a  ransom  for  all."^  Through  St.  Paul 
Jesus  Christ  "  shews  forth  his  longsufFering, 
for  an  ensample  of  them  which  should  hereafter 
believe  on  him  unto  eternal  life."'^  The  whole 
incarnation  is  described  in  a  well  -  known 
passage :  "  He  who  was  manifested  in  the 
flesh,  justified  in  the  spirit,  seen  of  angels, 
preached  among  the  nations,  believed  on  in 
the  world,  received  up  in  glory.  "^  The 
Gospel  was  given  us  in  Christ  Jesus  "  before 
times  eternal,  but  hath  now  been  manifested 
by  the  appearing  of  our  Saviour,  Christ  Jesus, 
who  abolished  death,  and  brought  life  and 
incorruption  to  light  through  the  gospel."^ 
In  these  Epistles  we  find  historical  facts  as 
to  Christ's  life  referred  to,  but  quite  inci- 
dentally :  His  descent  from  David,^  His  good 
confession  before  Pontius  Pilate,''  the  words 
in  the  former  case  being  perhaps  a  reminis- 

1  1  Tim.  i.  15.         2  1  Tim.  ii.  5.         ^  i  Tim.  i.  l6. 
4  1  Tim.  iii.  l6;  cf.  Titus  iii.  4.  ^  2  Tim.  i.  9-10. 

6  2  Tim.  ii.  8.  7  i  Tim.  vi.  13. 

7 


50       ST.  PAUL'S  CHRISTOLOGY 

cence  of  the  introduction  to  Romans,  while 
the  Passion  narrative  was  always  in  St. 
Paul's  thoughts.  It  is  a  manifestation  of  the 
glory  of  our  great  God  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ.^  The  language  is  in  all  cases  con- 
sistent with  that  of  St.  Paul.  It  could 
never  have  come  into  being  unless  there 
had  been  behind  it  a  theology  at  any  rate 
resembling  the  Pauline,  but  it  would  be  hazard- 
ous to  say  that  any  expressions  such  as  those 
we  have  mentioned  would  necessitate  Pauline 
authorship. 

II 

We  must  now  attempt  to  analyze  more 
carefully  St.  Paul's  conception  of  Christ,  and 
the  best  passage,  probably,  to  begin  with  will 
be  the  opening  verses  of  Romans,  where  our 
Lord  is  described  as  "  born  of  the  seed  of 
David  according  to  the  flesh  ;  declared  to  be 
the  Son  of  God  with  power,  according  to  the 
spirit  of  holiness,  by  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead." 2  Here,  quite  clearly,  one  person  is 
referred  to — Jesus  the  Christ,  the  Lord,  the  Son 
of  God.  But  He  is  described  in  two  aspects 
— the  one  according  to  the  flesh,  the  other 
according  to  the  spirit,  this  spirit  being  further 

*  Titus  ii.  13.  2  Rom.  i.  3,  4 ;  cf.  2  Tim.  ii.  8. 


THE  HUMANITY  OF  CHRIST     51 

defined  as  the  spirit  of  holiness.  We  can 
probably  best  explain  the  meaning  of  these 
words  if  we  realize  that  there  is  just  the  same 
antithesis  here  in  regard  to  the  nature  of 
Christ  that  we  find  elsewhere  as  regards  the 
nature  of  man.  There  is  what  we  may  call 
the  earthly  aspect,  and  there  is  the  heavenly 
aspect ;  and  it  will  be  convenient  to  treat  these 
two  aspects  separately. 

What  was  St.  Paul's  opinion  of  the  earthly 
life  of  Christ,  of  the  man  Jesus  ?  It  is  neces- 
sary to  refer  at  this  point  to  a  well-known 
passage,  on  which  great  stress  is  often  laid, 
and  from  which  certain  deductions  have  been 
made,  which  are  in  our  opinion  incorrect. 
'*  Wherefore,"  he  writes,  "we  know  no  man 
henceforth  after  the  flesh  ;  even  if  we  have 
known  Christ  after  the  flesh,  yet  now  we 
know  him  so  no  more."^  These  words  have 
given  rise  to  much  speculation.  By  some 
they  have  been  taken  to  mean  that  St.  Paul 
had  been  personally  acquainted  with  the  Lord  ; 
by  others  they  have  been  supposed  to  mean 
that  he  was  indifferent  to  our  Lord's  earthly 
ministry.  Neither  of  these  interpretations  is, 
we  believe,  correct.  If  anyone  will  look  at  the 
context  for  a  minute,  he  will  see  that  St.  Paul 

1   2  Cor.  V.  16. 


52       ST.  PAUL'S  CHRISTOLOGY 

has  been  speaking  of  his  own  ministry,  and  of 
certain  people  who  had  condemned  it.  They 
had  judged,  he  says,  by  appearance  only,  and 
it  is  with  that  opinion  that  he  is  concerned. 
He  claims  to  be  judged,  not  as  what  he  seems 
to  be,  but  as  one  who  is  a  new  creature  in 
Christ.  He  himself,  he  says,  has  left  off  judg- 
ing according  to  the  flesh — i.e.,  according  to 
the  appearance  men  present  in  ordinary  human 
life.  There  had  been  a  time  when  he  had 
judged  Christ  also  according  to  the  flesh ;  just 
as  the  Pharisees  he  had  probably  considered 
Him  a  deluded  and  harmful  impostor.  Now  he 
no  longer  so  judges  Him.  He  knows  that  God 
was  in  Him  reconciling  the  world  to  Himself. 
It  is  the  same  of  anyone  else  who  is  in  Christ. 
They  must  all  be  judged  in  accordance  with 
their  spiritual  nature,  not  in  accordance  with 
the  earthly  manifestations  of  their  nature. 
What  St.  Paul,  in  fact,  condemns  is  the 
ordinary  human  judgement. 

Probably  '*'  earthly  life"  would  represent  most 
accurately  the  meaning  attached  by  St.  Paul 
to  the  words  "  according  to  the  flesh,"  and  it 
is  this  earthly  life  that  we  must  first  consider. 
Jesus,  he  tells  us,  was  a  man  of  the  seed  of 
David,^  born  of  a  woman,  born  under  the  law.^ 

^  Rom.  i.  3,  4.  -  Gal.  iv.  4. 


THE  EARTHLY  LIFE  53 

He  refers  to  the  brethren  of  the  Lord,  and 
especially  to  James.  Jesus'  life  was  holy. 
Though  He  bore  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh, 
yet  He  knew  not  sin.  He  was  meek  and 
gentle  ;  He  was  righteous  and  obedient ;  He 
had  appointed  Apostles  who  were  twelve  in 
number.  Now,  it  is  true,  of  course,  that 
St.  Paul  does  not  give  much  information  about 
the  earthly  life  of  our  Lord.  It  must  be  re- 
membered that  his  Epistles  are  subsidiary  to  the 
ordinary  teaching,  and  that  he  would  not  dwell 
in  them  upon  anything  which  was  not  a  matter 
of  difficulty  and  controversy ;  and  so  the  fact 
that  he  does  not  refer  much  to  incidents  in  our 
Lord's  earthly  life  does  not  imply  that  he  con- 
sidered it  a  matter  of  little  importance.  It  was, 
in  fact,  a  proof  for  him  of  that  self-humiliation 
which  was  finally  consummated  in  His  death. 
It  was,  indeed,  a  fact  of  tremendous  impor- 
tance. Though  our  Lord  had  been  rich,  yet 
for  our  sakes  He  had  become  poor.^  This 
does  not  refer  specifically  to  His  poverty 
in  material  things,  but  to  the  poorness  of 
His  earthly  life  in  comparison  with  His 
heavenly  glory.  Yet  the  context  to  the 
passage  shews  that,  in  all  probability,  the 
poverty  of  the  life  of  Jesus  helped  to  complete 

1  2  Cor.  viii.  9. 

8 


54       ST.  PAUL'S  CHRISTOLOGY 

the  picture  of  His  self-denial.  The  same  ideas, 
both  generally  and  specifically,  seem  to  be 
implied  in  the  well-known  passage  of  PhiUp- 
pians.  He  emptied  himself.^  He  took  the 
form  of  a  servant.  He  humbled  Himself. 
And  in  this  life  of  humiliation  He  had  been  an 
example  to  mankind. 

There  is  no  reason,  indeed,  for  thinking  that 
St.  Paul  in  any  way  disparaged  the  earthly 
life  of  Christ.  But  it  was  in  His  death  that  the 
meaning  of  this  life  was  most  fully  revealed.  St. 
Paul  speaks  of  the  death  of  Christ  as  the  central 
point  of  his  teaching.  Christ  had  been  betrayed, 
but  before  His  betrayal  He  had  celebrated  the 
Last  Supper  with  His  disciples.  He  had  been 
crucified — the  Pastoral  Epistles  tell  us  under 
Pontius  Pilate — and  had  suffered  at  the  hands 
of  the  Jews.     He  had  been  buried. 

But  this  was  not  all.  Christ  had  risen  from 
the  dead.  To  St.  Paul  this  was  a  central  fact 
of  his  teaching.  "  If  Christ  hath  not  been 
raised,  then  is  our  preaching  in  vain. "  ^  St.  Paul 
had  therefore  taken  much  trouble  to  obtain 
evidence  of  the  fact.  His  primary  belief  came, 
no  doubt,  from  the  vision  that  had  appeared 
to  him  of  the  risen  Christ,  and  from  the  power 
that  had  thus  come  into  his  life  with  the  firm 

1  Phil.  ii.  7.  ^  1  Cor.  xv.  14. 


CHRIST'S  RESURRECTION       55 

conviction  which  he  had  that  Christ  was  ahve. 
But  this  was  not  sufficient  for  him.  He  had 
sought  and  obtained  evidence  that  Christ  had 
risen  on  the  third  day.  This  incidental  state- 
ment imphes  a  knowledge  of  the  facts  re- 
corded in  the  Gospels,  and  of  the  empty  tomb. 
For  the  Church  had  fixed  the  third  day  as 
that  when  our  Lord  rose  from  the  dead,  on  the 
ground  that  on  the  third  day  the  tomb  was 
empty.  Further,  there  was  evidence  that 
Christ  had  been  seen  by  a  large  number  of  His 
disciples  and  followers,  and  that  these  visions 
had  not  been  merely  appearances  to  a  single 
person.  On  one  occasion,  certainly,  He  had 
been  seen  by  500  brethren  at  once,  and  many 
of  them,  so  St.  Paul  tells  us,  were  still  living  at 
the  time  he  was  writing,  to  testify  to  what  they 
had  seen.  Suggestions  have  been  made  that 
the  other  appearances  of  the  risen  Christ  were, 
like  that  to  St.  Paul,  subjective,  and  that  it  was 
simply  a  conviction  which  he  had  that  Christ 
was  living  that  was  to  him  the  essential  point. 
Nothing  can  be  more  erroneous  than  this,  as  a 
representation  ol  St.  Paul's  own  point  of  view. 
He  clearly  looked  upon  the  resurrection  of 
Christ  as  in  some  sense  a  bodily  resurrection — a 
resurrection  in  human  form  in  a  spiritual  body. 
He  believed  His  reappearances  were  objective 


56       ST.  PAUL'S  CHRISTOLOGY 

facts  to  which  human  testimony  could  be 
given,  and  that  the  resurrection  was  the 
fundamental  proof  of  the  Messiahship  of 
Jesus.  No  doubt  it  was  not  merely  evidence 
of  external  facts  that  made  him  believe. 
External  facts  alone  are  rarely  strong  enough 
to  change  a  man's  whole  life.  It  was  the 
spiritual  change  which  had  taken  place  in  him 
— a  change  which  had  been  the  result  of  many 
influences.  But,  as  an  intellectual  man,  St. 
Paul  asked  for  objective  corroboration,  and 
found  it  in  the  fact  of  the  resurrection.  So 
for  others  the  resurrection  was  the  test  of  their 
belief,  1  and  it  was  by  the  resurrection  that 
Jesus  was  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God.^ 

St.  Paul  does  not  normally  refer  to  the 
actual  teaching  of  Jesus.  But  the  allusions 
that  he  does  make  are  sufficient  to  prove 
that  he  was  acquainted  with  records  of  His 
words,  and  considered  them  authoritative. 
Certain  incidents  which  happened  in  the  Church 
of  Corinth  led  to  his  giving  a  detailed  account 
of  the  Last  Supper,  which  is  in  some  ways 
more  complete  than  that  in  the  Gospels,  but 
agrees  with  them  in  all  main  details.^  In  the 
same  Epistle  he  refers  definitely  to  the  com- 

1  Rom.  X.  9.  '  Rom.  i.  4. 

3   1  Cor.  xi.  23-25. 


ST.  PAUL  AND  THE  GOSPELS    57 

mand  of  our  Lord  as  to  the  insolubility  of 
marriage,  1  and  to  the  right  of  ministers  of  the 
Gospel  to  live  of  the  Gospel.  ^  While  such 
definite  references  are  not  common,  resem- 
blances to  the  words,  still  more  to  the  teach- 
ing, are  much  more  so.  *'  He  that  rejects  me 
rejects  not  me,  but  him  that  sent  me."^  The 
Pharisees  are  those  who  shut  out  others  from 
the  kingdom.^  Christians  are  to  bear  one 
another's  burdens,  according  to  the  law  of 
Christ  ^ ;  the  Christian,  following  the  example 
of  his  Master,  prays  for  his  persecutors.^  The 
Church  meets  together  in  the  name  of  Jesus. 
If  the  language  of  the  Gospels  and  the  Epistles 
is  carefully  compared  together,  the  resem- 
blance between  the  teaching  of  St.  Paul  and 
our  Lord  will  be  found  to  be  large,  and  that 
particularly  as  regards  the  moral  teaching. 
The  great  hymn  of  Christian  love  in  the 
Corinthians  is  the  direct  development  of  the 
fundamental  teaching  of  our  Lord.  The 
evidence,  in  fact,  of  the  Epistles  is  quite 
sufficient  to  prove  the  existence  of  the  body 

1  1  Cor.  vii.  10-11  ;  Matt.  v.  32  ;  Mark  x.  2-12. 

2  1  Cor.  ix.  13  ;  Luke  x.  7  ;  Matt.  x.  10. 
^  1  Thess.  iv.  8  ;  Luke  x.  l6. 

4  Gal.  iv.  17  ;  Matt,  xxiii.  13. 

^  Gal.  vi.  2;  Mark  ix.  35. 

6  1   Cor.  iv.  12,  13  ;  Luke  vi.  28  ;  Matt.  v.  11. 


58       ST.  PAUL'S  CHRISTOLOGY 

of  teaching  which  we  have  in  the  Gospels, 
and  a  reasonable  interpretation  of  the  facts 
would  be  that  the  life,  the  death,  the  teaching, 
and  the  person,  of  Christ  as  there  recorded, 
were  the  foundations  of  St.  Paul's  teaching. 

Ill 

It  is  a  common  thing  to  say  nowadays  that 
St.  Paul's  interest  was  only  in  the  Divine 
Christ — that  the  earthly  Jesus  was  to  him  of 
little  concern.  It  is  true,  of  course,  that 
Jesus  as  the  Messiah  was  the  central  point 
of  his  teaching ;  but  it  is  equally  true  that  he 
knew  only  of  this  Divine  Christ  through  His 
manifestation  on  earth,  and  it  was  only  through 
this  manifestation  that  the  redemption  had 
taken  place.  In  reality  it  is  erroneous  to 
make  any  distinction  between  the  two.  To 
St.  Paul  the  personal  unity  of  Jesus  Christ 
was  fundamental.  There  was  no  hint  of  any 
separation  such  as  some  modern  scholars  would 
make.  He  who  had  appeared  in  the  Hesh, 
Jesus  Christ  the  Lord,  was  proved  by  the 
resurrection  to  be  the  Son  of  God.  It  would, 
perhaps,  be  an  anachronism  to  ask  too  care- 
fully what  was  the  relation,  according  to 
St.  Paul,  between  the  two  natures  of  Christ. 
It  was  not  a  question  which  had  been  raised. 


PERSONALITY  OF  CHRIST      59 

It  was  not  a  question  on  which  he  would  have 
a  fundamental  difficulty,  and  therefore  it  was 
not  a  question  on  which  he  would  have  devel- 
oped a  theory.  Probably,  however,  St.  Paul's 
point  of  view  would  be  best  explained  by  an 
analogy  to  human  nature  as  he  conceived  it. 
As  we  shall  see  later,  he  looked  upon  man  in 
himself  as  fundamentally  one.  Neither  his 
material  body  nor  that  life  which  he  shared 
with  the  lower  animals  were  to  be  looked  upon 
as  in  themselves  evil  or  unnecessary.  They 
were  a  part  of  his  personality,  capable,  there- 
fore, of  being  transformed  with  his  whole 
personality  under  the  influence  of  the  Divine 
Spirit.  But  the  real  man  lies  in  his  spiritual 
nature,  and  if  this  dominates  the  whole  human 
personality,  then  man  becomes  what  he  was 
intended  to  be.  Jesus  Christ,  then,  was  to  St. 
Paul  the  Son  of  God.  His  spiritual  nature 
had  become  wholly  Divine.  In  His  earthly 
manifestation  He  had  appeared  with  all  the 
reality  of  human  nature,  as  well  as  with  the 
outward  appearance  of  man.  But  this  human 
nature  was  dominated  by  His  Divine  and 
spiritual  nature,  so  that  that  which  was  capable 
of  being  weak  and  sinful  in  others  was  in  Him 
entirely  transformed  through  His  spiritual 
power.     Clearly  for  St.    Paul   there  was  no 


60      ST.  PAUL'S  CHRISTOLOGY 

dual  personality,  and  no  incompleteness  of 
human  characteristics,  but  the  whole  being 
of  Jesus  was  dominated  by  the  fact  that  He 
was  the  Son  of  God. 

What  did  St.  Paul  think  of  the  nature  of 
the  Son  ?  Of  His  Divine  pre-existence  there 
could  be  no  doubt.  "  God  had  sent  forth  His 
Son."^  He  who  pre-existed  with  all  the  essen- 
tial nature  of  the  Godhead  counted  not  this 
equality  with  God  a  thing  to  be  grasped 
at.^  Owing  to  the  fact  of  this  pre-existence 
there  was  a  special  relation  between  Him  and 
the  Father.  It  is  described  as  equality  with 
God.  He  was  the  Image  of  the  unseen  God. 
In  and  through  Him,  God,  the  Source  of  all 
things,  has  worked.  There  is  no  clear  instance 
of  the  word  "  God  "  being  actually  applied  to 
the  Son  in  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  although  it  is  a 
probable  interpretation  of  more  than  one  pas- 
sage. But  St.  Paul  would  have  had  no  diffi- 
culty in  using  the  word. 

But  how  had  St.  Paul  conceived  of  the 
relationship  of  the  Son  to  the  Father  ?  Here 
we  reach  a  point  where  he  is  not  explicit. 
The  problem  had  not  presented  itself  to  him 
as  it  presented  itself  to  later  generations.  We 
must   not,  therefore,  read   into   his   language 

1  Gal.  iv.  4  ]  Rom.  viii.  'S.  ^  phU.  ii.  6,  7. 


CHRIST  THE  SON  OF  GOD      61 

expressions  of  later  times.  We  shall,  how- 
ever, discuss  this  question  more  fully  when  we 
speak  of  the  Spirit. 

As  Son  of  God,  Christ  had  a  special  relation 
to  the  world  and  mankind.  He  was  supreme 
over  the  world.  All  things  were  made  in  or 
through  Him.  Not  only  were  they  made 
through  Him,  but  in  Him  they  existed.  In 
regard  to  mankind,  we  have  to  remember  that 
Christ  was  not  only  man,  but  representative 
man.  He  was  a  man  from  heaven.  As  Adam 
was  the  first  man,  He  was  the  second  man. 
As  in  Adam  life  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the 
word  came  into  the  world,  so  in  Christ  all  that 
was  spiritual  came  in.  So,  again,  as  representa- 
tive man  He  was  the  first  to  rise,  the  first- 
fruits  of  the  dead,  among  many  brethren. 
He  is  the  beginning,  the  first-born  from  the 
dead.  As  such  the  Church  is  His  Body,  and 
He  is  its  Head.  He  has  been  highly  exalted, 
and  has  obtained  a  Name  that  is  above  every 
name.  So,  in  relation  to  the  world,  the  fact 
of  His  Divine  and  human  nature,  the  fact  of 
His  close  relationship  to  the  Father,  made 
Him  the  Representative  of  God,  if  we  may 
put  it  so,  on  earth.  God  was  unseen,  but 
Christ  is  His  Image.  God  we  cannot  know 
or  see,  but  He  has  revealed  Himself  in  Christ ; 


62       ST.  PAUL'S  CHRISTOLOGY 

and  Christ  we  can  know,  and  see  also  as 
regards  His  work.  God  was  in  Christ  recon- 
cihng  the  world  to  Himself.  The  work  that 
Christ  did  was  the  work  of  God.  In  and 
through  Christ  God  has  worked  in  the  world. 

Throughout  the  conception  of  St.  Paul  is 
double.  On  the  one  side  Christ  is  spoken 
of  always  as  on  equality  with  God.  He  is 
equal  to  the  Father.  But  in  His  life  on  earth 
He  had  taken  to  Himself  human  nature  with 
all  its  weakness  and  infirmity.  Hence  while 
as  Son  of  God  equality  with  the  Father 
was  something  that  He  had  from  the  begin- 
ning, as  Christ  He  was  exalted  and  received 
a  name  which  was  above  every  name  He 
was  thus  exalted,  not  only  in  Himself,  but  as 
representative  of  humanity. 

IV 

What  was  the  source  of  this  conception  of 
the  Christ  ?  Did  St.  Paul  receive  it  from 
Christianity,  or  did  he  bring  it  into  Christianity  ? 
How  much  did  he  receive  ?  how  much  did  he 
contribute?  We  have  already  referred  to 
the  theory  that  St.  Paul's  conception  of  the 
heavenly  Christ  was  something  which  he 
did  not  receive  from  the  early  teachers  of 
Christianity,  but  built  up  for  himself  in  accord- 


SOURCE  OF  PAUL'S  TEACHING    63 

ance  with  contemporary  Jewish  conceptions, 
and  then  brought  into  the  Christian  Church. 
In  other  words,  that  while  St.  Paul  might 
draw  his  information  from  the  Church  con- 
cerning details  of  Christ's  teaching  or  the  narra- 
tive of  His  death  and  resurrection,  yet  the 
final  conception  of  the  IMessiah  that  he  held 
was  not  due  to  any  historical  information 
that  he  had  received,  but  partly  to  his  own 
spiritual  experience,  and  partly  to  his  intel- 
lectual presuppositions.  It  is,  of  course, 
impossible  to  hold  such  an  idea  without 
reversing  the  generally  accepted  conception 
of  the  relation  of  St.  Paul's  teaching  to  the 
Gospels.  We  have  to  believe  if  we  would 
accept  the  above  theory,  that  St.  Mark's  Gospel 
in  the  present  form  was  due  to  his  influence.  To 
believe  this  is,  in  our  opinion,  really  impossible. 
If  anyone  will  examine  the  Gospel,  he  will  find 
a  complete  absence  of  any  definite  allusion  to 
Pauline  teaching.  Take  one  important  point 
— the  story  of  the  Last  Supper.  Here  we  have 
a  narrative  where  we  can  compare  St.  Paul's 
version  with  the  version  in  the  Gospel.  The 
two  stories  are  entirely  consistent  with  the 
supposition  that  they  are  different  accounts 
of  the  same  event  supplementing  one  another, 
as  such  accounts  will.     But   on  no   ordinary 


64       ST.  PAUL'S  CHRISTOLOGY 

theory  of  probability  is  it  possible  to  believe 
that  the  account  in  St.  JNIark's  Gospel  was 
drawn  from  that  of  St.  Paul  in  any  way  at 
all.  St.  Paul's  account  might  be  a  develop- 
ment of  that  of  St.  Mark  ;  that  of  St.  Mark 
cannot  be  derived  from  or  developed  from  that 
of  St.  Paul.  What  is  true  in  this  particular 
case  is  true  about  the  whole  Gospel.  Suppos- 
ing that  it  had  been  inspired  or  influenced  by 
the  teaching  of  St.  Paul,  it  must  be  inevitable 
that  some  trace  of  Pauline  phraseology  and 
Pauline  technical  terms  would  have  crept  in. 
There  is  no  instance  of  any  such.  There  are 
a  few  passages  which  are  supposed  to  represent 
Paulinism  because  the  indifference  of  meats  and 
other  like  things  is  taught,  but  even  here,  while 
the  teaching  is,  of  course,  fundamentally  the 
same,  there  is  no  reference  to  St.  Paul's  argu- 
ment or  his  way  of  expressing  things.  We 
can  understand  St.  Paul  if  we  believe  that 
he  developed  the  teaching  of  our  Lord  as  con- 
tained in  St,  Mark.  We  cannot  understand 
that  teaching  as  derived  from  St.  Paul. 

This  will  become  clearer  if  we  consider  more 
fully  the  relationship  of  St.  Paul  to  the  early 
Church.  We  have  already  pointed  out  that 
he  must  have  known  about  Christianity  before 
his    conversion,    have    had    some    reasonable 


PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIANITY     t,65 

grounds  for  persecuting  the  Christian  Church, 
and  so  that  Christianity  must  have  been  of 
such  a  character  as  to  induce  him  to  persecute 
it.  That  is  to  say,  that  not  only  must  the  early 
Christians  have  looked  upon  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah,  but  also  there  must  have  been  ele- 
ments of  what  St.  Paul  would  think  of  as  a 
dangerous  latitudinarianism  already  present. 
A  study  of  the  literature  which  we  still 
possess  will  corroborate  this  point  of  view. 
There  is  throughout  all  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament  a  common  background  of 
religious  belief  No  doubt  there  are  variations 
in  details  ;  no  doubt  there  are  differences  of 
language — for  example,  in  the  way  in  which 
our  Lord  is  spoken  of;  but  if  we  take  the 
various  groups  represented  by  the  Apocalypse, 
the  Epistles  of  St.  James  and  St.  Peter,  the 
Epistles  of  St.  Paul  and  Hebrews,  there  are  large 
common  elements  of  belief.  Now,  all  that 
must  go  back  to  a  common  source,  and  this 
St.  Paul  himself  particularly  tells  us  was  the 
case.  In  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  the  First 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  he  speaks  of  his 
gospel,  by  which  he  means  the  central  part  of  his 
teaching,  as  follows  :  "  Now  I  make  known 
unto  you,  brethren,  the  gospel  which  I  preached 
unto   you,   which   also  ye  received,    wherein 

9 


66       ST.  PAUL'S  CHRISTOLOGY 

also  ye  stand,  by  which  also  ye  are  saved." 
Then  he  further  tells  us  that  what  he  is  teaching 
was  what  he  had  heard  from  others,  and  later 
on  he  corroborates  this  :  '*  Whether,  then,  it  be 
I  or  they,  so  we  preached,  and  so  ye  believed."^ 
He  thus  describes  the  contents  of  this 
gospel :  "  Christ  died  for  our  sins  according 
to  the  scriptures  ;  He  was  buried ;  He  was 
raised  on  the  third  day."  St.  Paul's  gospel 
was  the  same  as  that  of  other  preachers  of  the 
primitive  Church.  He  can  appeal  to  common 
presuppositions  ;  he  argues  from  a  common 
belief. 

The  starting-point  of  St.  Paul's  preaching 
was  the  teaching  of  the  primitive  Church. 
What  was  the  relation  that  this  bore  to  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  ?  We  have  already  ex- 
amined the  relations  between  the  Epistles  and 
Gospels,  and  pointed  out  certain  specific  ref- 
erences to  our  Lord's  teaching  and  many 
coincidences.  A  curious  method  of  argument 
prevails  in  some  quarters,  by  which  it  is  assumed 
that  St.  Paul  had  no  knowledge  except  when 
he  makes  a  definite  reference.  Surely  a 
different  deduction  is  the  right  one.  There 
were  just  some  few  occasions  when  it  was 
necessary,  owing  to  difficulties  in  the  Church, 

^   1  Cor.  XV.  1,  3,  11. 


ST.  PAUL  AND  CHRIST  67 

to  refer  to  the  Gospel  teaching.  On  those 
occasions  St.  Paul  does  so.  He  cannot  gener- 
ally do  so,  because  the  main  purpose  of  his 
Epistles  was  to  deal  with  questions  on  which 
difficulties  had  arisen — that  is  to  say,  questions 
which  were  not  part  of  his  original  preaching, 
and  were  not,  therefore,  part  of  the  original 
teaching  of  the  Gospel.  But  throughout  the 
Epistles  presuppose  both  the  ordinary  teaching 
of  Christianity  and  the  ordinary  knowledge 
of  the  life  of  Christ.  And  that  this  is  the 
right  point  of  view  becomes  more  probable 
when  we  find,  as  we  do,  small  coincidences 
between  St.  Paul's  writings  and  the  body  of 
our  Lord's  teaching.  The  right  deduction,  in 
fact,  from  the  material  before  us  is  that 
St.  Paul,  like  the  primitive  Church,  had  the 
same  knowledge  of  the  life,  the  teaching,  the 
death,  the  resurrection,  of  Jesus,  as  that  which 
is  contained  for  us  in  our  present  Gospels. 

It  has  been  suggested  that  it  was  the  con- 
ception which  St.  Paul  already  had  of  the 
Messiah  as  part  of  his  Jewish  creed  that  was 
the  source  of  his  Christology.  No  doubt  this 
already  -  formed  conception  influenced  him. 
As  Christians  we  look  upon  the  expectation 
of  the  Messiah  as  part  of  the  preparation  for 
His  coming.     But  we  have  to  remember  that 


68       ST.  PAUL'S  CHRISTOLOGY 

this  belief  of  St.  Paul's  was  shared  by  him  with 
the  great  body  of  his  countrymen.     There  are 
points  on  which  St.  Paul  might  differ  from  the 
Galilean  peasants.    There  are  points  on  which, 
as  a  theologian,  he  would  be  out  of  sympathy 
with    them,   but    his    Messianic    expectation 
would  be  largely  on  the  same  lines  as  they. 
No  doubt  he  was  better  instructed,  no  doubt 
his  theological  knowledge   was   more  precise 
than   that  of  the   Galilean  fishermen,  but   it 
would  not  be  fundamentally  different.     What 
he  expected  the  other  Apostles  had  expected ; 
on   this   point   he   shared  his   mental   equip- 
ment   with    them.      So    also,    if    we    study 
the  teaching  of  our  Lord,  we  can  see  that, 
speaking   as   he   always   does   in  the  current 
language    of    religious   thought,   he    assumes 
on  the  part  of  his  hearers  the  same  concep- 
tion of  what  the  Messiah  will  be  that  we  have 
already  seen  was  held  by  St.  Paul. 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  all  the  early  teachers  of 
Christianity  would  share  in  a  somewhat  similar 
expectation  of  the  Messiah,  which  was  part  of 
current  Jewish  thought.  St.  Paul  did  not 
bring  in  anything  new  from  this  source.  But, 
after  all,  neither  the  teaching  of  St.  Paul,  nor 
the  teaching  of  the  early  Church,  nor  that  of  our 
Lord,  is  really  the  same  as  the  Jewish  expecta- 


THE  LIVING  CHRIST  69 

tion.  Jesus  Christ  was  a  different  Messiah  from 
what  the  Jews  had  expected.  That  was  why  the 
hulk  of  the  people  rejected  Him.  That  was 
why  only  gradually  His  immediate  followers 
had  learnt  to  believe  in  Him.  That  v/as 
why  St.  Paul  had  begun  by  persecuting  the 
Christians,  and  why  his  acceptance  of  Chris- 
tianity meant  such  a  tremendous  change  in 
his  Ufe.  Whence  came  the  conception  of  the 
suffering  Messiah  ?  Whence  came  the  belief 
in  One  who  was  meek  and  mild  ?  Whence 
came  the  gentleness  and  the  love  and  the 
humility  of  Christ  ?  Whence  came  that  re- 
adjustment of  ethical  teaching  ?  Whence 
came  that  deep  spiritual  insight?  Whence 
came  the  complete  transformation  of  the 
whole  Messianic  idea?  The  only  answer 
can  be,  the  life  and  work  of  Jesus  as  it  was 
known  to  St.  Paul.  After  all,  there  is  a 
tremendous  gulf  between  St.  Paul  as  a 
Christian  and  Saul  the  persecutor.  Some 
great  force  must  have  influenced  him.  That 
force  was  the  living  Christ. 

It  was  not,  then,  in  his  Christology  that  St. 
Paul  brought  any  new  ideas  into  Christianity. 
That  goes  back  to  the  teaching  of  Christ,  to 
the  Jewish  expectation,  to  the  crucifixion  and 
resurrection,  to  the  memories  of  the  earliest 

10 


70       ST.  PAUL'S  CHRISTOLOGY 

disciples.  At  his  conversion  he  accepted  the 
belief  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ.  He  recog- 
nized the  significance  of  His  death  and  resur- 
rection, he  perceived  in  himself  a  tremendous 
spiritual  change,  a  spiritual  change  which  was 
strong  enough  to  transform  his  whole  nature, 
and  was  a  sign  of  the  power  of  Christ.  Under 
this  influence  he  took  his  share  in  working  out 
for  the  world  the  full  significance  of  the  life 
and  death  of  Christ.  He  had  experienced,  as 
others  had  done,  the  spiritual  influence  of  His 
work,  and  he  brought  to  the  interpretation  of 
it  all  the  theological  and  philosophical  train- 
ing that  he  possessed.  He  connected  it  with 
the  philosophic  conception  of  the  representative 
man  which  was  already  part,  probably,  of 
Rabbinical  teaching.  The  description  of  Divine 
wisdom  in  the  Book  of  Wisdom  provided  lan- 
guage suitable  to  working  out  the  cosmological 
significance  of  His  being.  All  that  Palestinian 
philosophy  could  do  he  brought  to  the  de- 
velopment of  the  idea  of  the  Person  of  Christ. 
There  is  development,  but  there  is  no  change. 
St.  Paul  explained  and  interpreted  what  he 
received,  but  the  source  of  Christian  belief  in 
Christ  was  the  life  and  teaching  of  Christ. 


IV 

THE  WORK  OF  CHRIST 

Christ  the  Saviour — Significance  of  His  death  —  The  re- 
ligious development  of  St,  Paul — Old  Testament 
ideas — His  spiritual  experience — Christ  and  the  law 
— The  teaching  of  the  Church  and  of  Christ  Himself. 

The  Christ  was  the  Saviour.  That  was  the 
fundamental  idea  with  which  St.  Paul  started, 
and  this  conception  had,  like  all  others,  its 
root  in  the  current  eschatological  ideas.  The 
Christ  it  is  who  saves  us  in  the  last  great  con- 
vulsions from  the  wrath  of  God  which  cometh 
upon  the  world.  When  the  powers  of  evil  are  let 
loose,  those  who  follow  the  Son  and  are  called 
by  His  name  shall  be  saved.  All  the  forces  of 
evil,  concentrated  in  the  "lawless  one,"  will 
break  forth,  and  the  Lord  will  destroy  him  by 
the  breath  of  His  nostrils.  Then  the  Lord 
will  know  those  that  are  His  own,  those  that 
bear  His  seal  upon  them,  and  through  Him 
they  will  receive  salvation.  This  conception 
of  salvation  at  the  Last  Day  is,  it  must  be  re- 
membered, always  part  of  St.  Paul's  thought. 

71 


72  THE  WORK  OF  CHRIST 


Now,  the  first  point  to  notice  is  that  this 
salvation  comes  particularly  through  the  death 
of  Christ.  We  are  protected  from  "*  the  wrath," 
and  receive  salvation  "  through  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  who  died  for  us,  that  whether  we  wake 
or  sleep  we  may  live  with  him."^  Here  the 
thought  is  still  eschatological,  and  this  salva- 
tion, it  is  implied,  comes  in  some  particular  way 
through  the  death  of  Christ  for  us.  Christ 
died  that  we  might  live  with  Him,  whether 
we  wake  or  sleep.  In  what  way  does  the  death 
of  Christ  lead  to  our  life  with  Him  ?  Here  in 
the  two  earliest  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  in  definite 
connection  with  his  eschatological  presupposi- 
tions, we  have  these  two  thoughts — salvation 
through  the  death  of  Christ,  and  union  with 
Christ  through  His  death — as  recognized  for- 
mulas. 

This  thought  of  the  death  of  Christ  is  fun- 
damental. Christ  crucified  is  placarded  before 
the  world. 2  The  word  of  the  Cross  is  the 
power  of  God.^  Christ  crucified  is  the  power 
of  God  and  the  wisdom  of  God.^  Christ  died 
for  each  one  of  us.^     In  a  similar  way  great 

I  1  Thess.  V.  9,  10.         -  Gal.  iii.  1.         ^  1  Cor.  i.  18. 
4  1  Cor.  i.  23,  24.  ^  g  Cor.  v.  14,  15. 


THE  DEATH  OF  CHRIST         73 

stress  is  laid  on  the  sufferings  of  Christ.  Our 
comfort  abounds  as  Christ's  sufferings  abound 
to  us.^  This  special  emphasis,  however,  seems 
to  be  laid,  not  so  much  on  the  death  by  itself, 
but  on  the  death,  and  resurrection  together. 
Christ  was  delivered  to  death  for  our  sins,  and 
was  raised  for  our  justification. ^  We  shall 
escape  condemnation,  "  for  it  is  Christ  who 
died,  or,  rather,  rose  from  the  dead,  who  sitteth 
on  the  right  hand  of  God,  who  also  maketh 
intercession  for  us."^  "Christ  died  and  lived 
again  that  he  might  be  Lord  of  both  the  dead 
and  the  living."*  This  death  of  Christ  is  on 
the  one  side  the  work  of  God,  who  spared  not 
His  own  Son.^  On  the  other  side  it  is  an  act 
of  self-sacrifice  on  the  part  of  Christ  who  gave 
Himself  for  our  sins.^  Hence  we  have  two 
great  ethical  facts  :  Christ's  death  was  a  volun- 
tary act  of  self-sacrifice  on  His  part,  and  also  an 
act  of  self-sacrifice  on  the  part  of  the  Father  ; 
and,  further,  it  is  a  revelation  of  the  love  of 
Christ  and  God.  Christ  loved  us,  and  gave 
Himself  for  our  sins.^  The  death  of  Christ 
was  a  great  Divine  act.  God  was  in  Christ 
reconciling  the   world   to   Himself.^     It  was 

1  2  Cor.  i.  5.  2  Roi^,  jy,  25.  3  £0^1.  viii.  34. 

4  Rom.  xiv.  9.         ^  Rom.  viii.  32.         ^  Gal.  i.  4. 

7  Eph.  V.  2  ;  Rom.  viii.  35,  39.  ^  2  Cor.  v.  18,  19. 


74  THE  WORK  OF  CHRIST 

God's  purpose  of  salvation.  It  was  a  great 
act  of  redemption  of  mankind.  How  did  it 
help  us  ?     What  has  it  done  for  us  ? 

The  primary  answer  is,  Christ  gave  Himself 
for  our  sins,  that  He  might  deliver  us  out  of 
this  present  evil  world. ^  We  again  notice 
that  the  thought  springs  from  an  eschato- 
logical  background.  The  revelation  of  the 
Lord  from  heaven  is  to  destroy  what  is  evil, 
and  to  save  the  good.  But  mankind  is  evil ; 
how,  then,  can  he  be  saved  ?  As  he  is  sinful, 
he  must  perish  with  the  sinful  world.  The 
answer  was  that  Christ  had  died  for  our  sins.^ 
This  is  what  St.  Paul  had  learnt  from  the 
Church  ;  what  he  had  found  in  the  Scriptures  ; 
what  he  always  taught. 

II 

The  fundamental  question,  then,  is,  How  did 
Christ's  death  save  us  from  our  sins  ?  If  we 
pause  for  a  moment  and  look  at  this  question 
in  the  light  of  the  history  of  the  Christian 
Church,  we  shall  find  that,  while  every  religious 
man  has  felt  the  reality  of  his  salvation  through 
the  death  of  Christ,  and  while  it  has  been  a 
fundamental  doctrine  of  Christianity  at  every 
period  from  the  beginning,  there  has  been  the 

1  Gal.  i.  4.  2  Rom.  v.  8. 


THE  ATONEMENT  75 

greatest  variety  in  the  theological  interpreta- 
tion both  of  the  meaning  of  the  Atonement 
and  of  the  meaning  of  the  language  of  St.  Paul. 
While  the  wealth  of  language  and  power  of 
thought  with  which  St.  Paul  illustrates  his 
teaching  is  very  great,  it  is  often  difficult  for 
us  to  realize  its  full  meaning.  Many  of  his 
forms  of  thought  were  different  from  our  own, 
and  it  is  hard  to  explain  in  accordance  with 
modern  ideas  the  fundamental  principles 
according  to  which  he  thought.  And  more 
than  that,  St.  Paul's  teaching  was  built  up 
partly,  at  any  rate,  on  his  religious  experience 
rather  than  on  theological  presuppositions. 

Let  us  try  and  reconstitute  his  religious 
history.  Saul  the  Pharisee  expected  the 
coming  of  the  JNlessiah,  the  Son  of  God.  He 
believed  that  He  would  save  him  and  all  faith- 
ful Israelites,  and  establish  them  in  His  king- 
dom, and  that  all  the  forces  of  evil  would  be 
destroyed.  As  Saul  the  Pharisee  he  looked 
upon  Jesus  as  a  false  Messiah,  one  who  had 
paid  the  penalty  of  his  imposture  on  the  cross, 
and  was  therefore  accursed.  His  conversion 
meant  the  reversal  of  this  opinion.  In  accepting 
Jesus  as  the  Messiah  he  necessarily  learnt  that 
the  Messiah  was  very  different  to  what  he  had 
expected.      If  the  Messiah  had  died  on  the 


76  THE  WORK  OF  CHRIST 

cross,  then  the  death  of  Christ  was  not  a  sign 
of  failure,  but  of  triumph. 

Now,  St.  Paul  tells  us  explicitly  that  the 
fundamental  fact  which  he  learnt  on  his  con- 
version was  that  Christ  Jesus  died  for  our  sins 
according  to  the  Scriptures.  That  is,  that 
Christ's  death  and  its  meaning  had  been  fore- 
told. When  a  Jew  who  accepted  the  Scriptures 
learnt  to  believe  that  the  death  of  Jesus  was  the 
death  of  the  Messiah,  he  would  search  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  learn  from  them  what  they  had  to 
teach.  So  he  would  find  in  the  Book  of  Isaiah 
passages  such  as  the  following:  **He  was  de- 
spised and  rejected  of  men,  a  man  of  sorrows 
and  acquainted  with  grief.  .  .  .  He  has  borne 
our  griefs  and  carried  our  sorrows.  ...  He 
was  wounded  for  our  transgressions ;  he  was 
bruised  for  our  iniquities.  .  .  .  With  his 
stripes  we  are  healed,  .  .  .  and  the  Lord  hath 
laid  upon  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all.  .  .  .  He 
was  numbered  with  the  transgressors,  and  he 
bore  the  sin  of  many,  and  made  intercession 
for  the  transgressors."^ 

With  passages  such  as  this  the  early  Church 
started.  The  Scriptures  had  given  the  meaning 
and  purpose  of  the  death  of  Christ ;  and  once 
the  conception  had  begun,  there  were  many 

i  Isa.  liii.  3-12. 


CHRIST  A  SACRIFICE  77 

other  directions  in  which  it  developed.  The 
words  of  Isaiah,  although  not  definitely  re- 
ferring to  the  language  of  sacrifice,  had  clearly 
suggested  the  idea,  and  all  our  records  tell  us 
that  Jesus  Himself  spoke  of  His  death  as  a 
sacrifice.  Hence  very  early  the  description 
of  Christ's  death  as  a  sacrifice  became  part  of 
the  teaching  of  the  Church,  and  as  such  it 
would  have  associated  with  it  everything 
that  was  implied  by  that  word.  We  do  not 
know  now,  and  it  is  difficult  for  us  to  realize, 
all  that  the  word  "  sacrifice  "  implied,  either  in 
popular  or  in  any  learned  theology  of  that 
time.  Undoubtedly  it  added  much  to  the 
conception  of  what  Christ's  death  had  meant, 
and  this  idea  of  sacrifice  was  clearly  in  St. 
Paul's  mind,  although  it  is  interesting  to 
notice  that  it  is  apparently  rather  secondary 
in  importance.  It  does  not  mould  his  thought ; 
it  rather  suggests  phraseology.  He  seems  to 
use  the  language  of  sacrifice  because  it  had 
been  used  by  others,  because  Jesus  had  used 
it  Himself.  We  must  remember  that  the 
sacrificial  system  would  not  mean  so  very 
much  to  him,  any  more  than  to  other  Jews 
of  the  Dispersion  ;  still,  it  had  helped  him  to 
explain  his  meaning,  and  so  he  speaks  of  the 
death  of  Christ  as  our  Passover — as  a  burnt 


78  THE  WORK  OF  CHRIST 

sacrifice,  as  a  sin  offering,  as  a  sacrifice  of 
atonement,  as  a  peace  offering.  Each  of  these 
aspects  suggested  ideas  which  might  illustrate 
his  meaning,  but  they  none  of  them  seem  to 
represent  his  normal  method  of  thought. 

There  were  other  Old  Testament  ideas  or 
ideas  of  current  theology  which  now  received 
their  full  meaning  in  St.  Paul's  mind.  One 
of  the  great  conceptions  of  the  Old  Testament 
had  been  that  of  redemption.  God  had  re- 
deemed Israel.  The  most  typical  act  of  redemp- 
tion was  the  emancipation  of  Israel  from  Egypt, 
but  always  God's  provident  care  had  watched 
over  His  people,  and  again  and  again  He  had 
redeemed  them  from  the  misfortunes  with 
which  they  had  been  overwhelmed ;  and  so 
now  a  new  redemption  initiates  the  history 
of  the  new  people,  and,  like  that,  it  began  in 
sacrifice.  The  Passover  lamb,  whose  blood 
was  sprinkled  on  the  lintel  and  doorposts,  was 
the  most  striking  feature  of  the  redemption 
from  Egypt.  Further  than  that,  the  idea  was 
present  in  people's  minds  that  in  shedding  of 
blood  was  remission  of  sins,  so  this  new  re- 
demption was  a  forgiveness  of  sin.  In  Him 
"  we  have  our  redemption  through  his  blood, 
the  forgiveness  of  trespasses."^ 
1  Eph.  i.  7. 


RECONCILIATION  79 

And  then  there  was  another  idea  always 
present  in  the  prophetic  books  of  the  Old 
Testament — the  relation  of  God  to  His  people, 
and  His  people  to  God.  Again  and  again  in 
their  past  history  the  people  had  sinned  and 
exposed  themselves  to  the  wrath  of  God.  The 
prophet  came  with  his  message  to  repent,  and 
his  mission  was  to  reconcile  Israel  once  again 
to  God.  On  account  of  their  sins  God  ex- 
hibited His  wrath  to  His  people.  What  was 
there  that  would  make  Him  lay  aside  that 
wrath  ?  How  could  man  be  once  more  recon- 
ciled to  God  ?  How  could  God  be  recon- 
ciled to  man  and  forgive  him  his  sins  ?  Clearly, 
to  St.  Paul's  mind  and  that  of  the  early 
Church,  that  act  of  Christ  was  a  great  act  of 
reconciliation,  and  it  was  that  because  it  was 
in  a  special  way  the  act  of  God.  "  All  things 
are  from  God,  who  reconciled  us  to  himself 
through  Christ ;  for  God  was  in  Christ  recon- 
ciling the  world  to  himself."  ^ 

III 

But  these  ideas  represent  only  the  starting- 
point  of  St.  Paul.  It  was  not  his  religious 
beliefs,  but  his  religious  experience,  which  was 
of    supreme    importance   to   him.      St.    Paul 

1  2  Cor.  V.  18,19;  Rom.  v.  10. 


80         THE  WORK  OF  CHRIST 

believed  in  the  atonement  of  Christ  because 
he  had  experienced  it.  He  had  accepted  Christ 
as  the  Messiah  ;  that  necessarily  involved  the 
acceptance  of  the  teaching  of  Christ  and  the 
significance  of  His  death.  The  early  Christian 
Church,  in  particular  the  Apostles,  who  had 
believed  in  Christ  before  the  death  on  the 
cross,  had  naturally  some  difficulty  in  grasping 
its  full  significance.  To  many  of  them  it  v^'^as 
a  difficulty  which  had  to  be  explained.  It  had 
not  meant  so  much  to  those  who  had  grown 
up  in  Christian  experience.  On  St.  Paul's 
mind,  on  the  contrary,  it  had  burst  as  a  great 
revelation.  Once  accept  the  fact  of  the  Cru- 
cifixion, and  the  whole  attitude  of  his  mind 
changed.  It  had  seemed  an  abomination.  He 
realized  it  now  as  a  tremendous  act  of  self- 
sacrifice.  God  had  not  spared  His  only  Son. 
Christ  had  died  for  the  world.  What  a 
wonderful  exhibition  of  Divdne  love  !  What 
a  striking  testimony  to  the  reality  of  the  Re- 
demption as  a  revelation  !  Clearly,  God  must 
have  laid  aside  His  wrath  at  the  sins  of  man. 
Clearly,  the  death  of  His  Son  must  have  recon- 
ciled the  world  to  Him.  Once  accept  what 
the  Church  had  already  learned  about  the 
death  of  Christ  as  God's  great  act  of  redemp- 
tion  and   reconciliation,   as   a  great   sacrifice 


ST.  PAUL'S  EXPERIENCE         81 

offered  for  mankind — and  this  St.  Paul  now 
believes — and  its  influence  upon  a  nature  such 
as  his  must  have  been  tremendous.  He  be- 
lieved with  all  the  intensity  of  his  faith  arising 
from  his  ardent  religious  feeling.  A  faith 
aroused  by  the  love  of  Christ  had  stirred  up  in 
him  a  corresponding  love  for  Christ,  and  this 
love  had  transformed  him.  He  had  been  re- 
deemed. He  had  been  reconciled.  This  he 
knew,  not  as  a  theological  truth,  but  as  a  fact 
of  personal  experience.  He  needed  no  argu- 
ments in  explanation  of  why  it  was  so.  It 
was  a  fact.  His  whole  nature  had  been  trans- 
formed. 

It  is  a  fact  of  the  utmost  importance  that 
we  should  recognize  the  reality  of  this  spiritual 
change  in  St.  Paul  before  dwelling  on  his 
theology  of  the  death  of  Christ.  It  is  notice- 
able that  in  such  an  Epistle  as  that  to  the 
Galatians,  where  he  had  to  pass  on  to  a  theo- 
logical discussion,  he  starts  with  his  religious 
experiences.  He  lived  in  Christ ;  he  had  been 
crucified  with  Him.  "I  have  been  crucified 
with  Christ."  "  It  is  no  longer  I  that  hve,  but 
Christ  liveth  in  me."^  My  present  hfe  is 
one  of  union  with  the  Son  of  God,  who  loved 
me  and  gave  Himself  for  me.     The  salvation 

1  Gal.  ii.  19,  20. 

11 


82  THE  WORK  OF  CHRIST 

of  man  has  become  possible  not  merely  because 
of  something  done  for  him,  but  because  of  a 
change  worked  in  him.  We  are  united  to 
Christ  in  a  real  if  unexplained  spiritual 
union.  That  is  the  real  cause  of  our  salvation, 
because  it  has  produced  a  complete  change  in 
us,  and  has  made  us  such  that  we  can  be 
saved.  It  has  its  roots  in  our  faith  in 
Christ. 

Now,  all  this  had  been  St.  Paul's  experience, 
and  his  theology  is  really  an  explanation  of 
this.  In  particular  it  explained  to  him  the 
meaning  of  Christ's  death  in  relation  to  the 
law,  and  in  relation  to  the  call  of  the  Gentiles. 
There  is  no  part  of  St.  Paul's  teaching  which 
is  harder  for  us  to  realize  or  understand  than 
that  which  deals  with  the  law.  But  quite 
clearly  he  had  felt  in  himself  that  the  tyranny 
of  the  law  had  been  done  away  with,  and  quite 
clearly  he  felt  that  that  tyranny  had  been  done 
away  through  the  death  of  Christ. 

IV 

There  are  two  main  passages  in  which  St. 
Paul  speaks  of  the  death  of  Christ  in  relation 
to  the  law.  One  is  in  Galatians.  There  he 
argues  that  all  those  who  are  subject  to  the 
law  are  under  a  curse,  for  it  is  written,  "  Cursed 


CHRIST  A  CURSE  83 

is  everyone  that  continueth  not  in  all  things 
that  are  written  in  the  book  of  the  law  to  do 
them."^  That  is  to  say,  as  he  explained  it,  it 
was  only  by  a  complete  fulfilment  of  the  works 
of  the  law  that  this  curse  could  be  avoided  and 
man  could  obtain  life.  This  he  had  found  to 
be  impossible.  He  has  himself  described  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  the  struggle  that 
he  had  made  to  live  a  life  exactly  conformable 
to  all  the  requirements  of  the  Jewish  law,  and 
he  ends  with  the  striking  prayer,  "  Oh  wretched 
man  that  I  am,  who  shall  deliver  me  from  the 
bondage  of  this  death  ?"^  He  now  sees  that 
the  curse  has  been  removed  for  those  who 
accept  Christ.  "  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from 
the  curse  of  the  law,  being  made  a  curse  for 
us  ;  for  it  is  written,  Cursed  is  everyone  that 
hangeth  on  a  tree."^  This  use  of  the  text  of 
Deuteronomy  might  be  described  as  a  brilliant 
controversial  device.  There  was  probably  no 
passage  used  by  the  Jews  against  the  Christians 
more  constantly  than  this  with  the  purpose  of 
proving  that  Jesus  was  not  the  IMessiah. 
Clearly  that  could  not  be.  Did  not  the  Scrip- 
tures say  that  anyone  who  hung  upon  a  tree — 
that  is  to  say,  anyone  who  was  crucified — was 
cursed  ?     How  could  one  who  was  accursed  be 

1  Gal.  iii.  10.  2  Rq^^.  vii.  24.  »  Gal.  iii.  13. 


84  THE  WORK  OF  CHRIST 

the  Messiah  ?  It  was  the  normal  exegesis  of  the 
time.  No  doubt  St.  Paul  had  often  heard  it. 
No  doubt  he  had  often  used  it  himself.  No 
other  text  seemed  better  able  to  support  their 
claim  that  a  crucified  Messiah  was  the  cause  of 
offence  to  God  and  man.  Now  St.  Paul  takes 
it  and  answers  the  argument.  Yes,  it  is  quite 
true  that  Clirist  had  been  crucified.  That 
means  that  He  has  Himself  borne  the  whole 
curse  of  the  law.  That  curse  was  therefore 
expiated,  and  man  was  free. 

Even  more  remarkable  is  the  language  in 
Ephesians  and  Colossians.  Christ  had  blotted 
out  the  handwriting  of  the  ordinances  which 
were  against  us.  He  had  nailed  it  to 
the  cross.  He  had  abolished  in  His  flesh  the 
enmity,  the  law  of  commandments.^  Here 
again  we  find  that  freedom  from  the  harsh 
system  of  legal  enactments  is  connected  by 
St.  Paul  with  the  death  of  Christ  upon  the 
cross.  The  cross  is  the  sign  of  man's  freedom, 
and  ultimately,  of  course,  the  reason  why  St. 
Paul  is  able  to  see  this  is  that  the  cross  had 
meant  freedom  for  himself.  It  had  meant 
freedom  for  himself  because  he  had  realized 
that,  if  God  was  love,  and  had  given  His 
only  begotten  Son,  then  this  harsh  legal  system, 

1  Col.  ii.  13-15;  Eph.  ii.  15. 


SALVATION  TO  GENTILES       85 

with  all  its  curses  and  its  impossible  demands 
on  human  nature,  could  only  represent  a  very 
imperfect  revelation.  That  was  the  funda- 
mental thought  to  St.  Paul,  and  sometimes 
when  he  is  proving  this  from  the  Scriptures  he 
naturally  uses  methods  of  exegesis  which  would 
carry  greater  conviction  in  his  day  than  they 
do  to  us. 

A  further  result  to  St.  Paul  of  the  signifi- 
cance of  the  death  of  Christ  had  been  that  it 
was  through  this  that  the  Gentiles  had  received 
salvation.  In  the  passage  from  the  Epistle  to 
the  Galatians  which  we  have  just  quoted  St. 
Paul  continues  "  that  the  blessing  of  Abraham 
might  come  on  the  Gentiles  through  Jesus 
Christ."^  And,  again,  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Ephesians  he  tells  us  how  **  in  Christ  Jesus  ye 
who  in  time  past  were  far  off  have  been  made 
nigh  by  the  blood  of  Christ.  For  he  is  our 
peace,  who  hath  made  both  one,  and  hath 
broken  down  the  middle  wall  of  partition."^ 
Here,  probably,  the  metaphor  in  St.  Paul's 
mind  is  that  of  the  covenant  sacrifice.  Ac- 
cording to  the  Book  of  Exodus,  the  old  cove- 
nant had  been  inaugurated  by  the  shedding  of 
blood.  There  had  been  now  a  new  covenant 
in   Christ,  which  had  abolished   the  old  and 

1  Gal.  iii.  14.  2  Eph.  ii.  13-15. 

12 


86  THE  WORK  OF  CHRIST 

made  peace  where  there  was  enmity.  Again 
the  mode  of  thought  is  certainly  not  our 
thought.  In  this  passage,  as  in  the  previous 
one,  St.  Paul's  arguments  are  exactly  in  ac- 
cordance with  his  theological  training,  and 
with  the  thoughts  and  ideas  of  his  time. 

But  the  truth  that  he  was  expressing  in 
language  which  might  pass  away  was  the 
eternal  one.  For  what  St.  Paul  had  realized 
was  that  the  substitution  of  the  principle  of 
faith  instead  of  law,  of  loyal  adherence  to  a 
person  instead  of  obedience  to  a  rigid  code,  the 
promulgation  of  the  love  of  God  through  Christ 
for  the  whole  world,  had  created  conditions 
which  would  enable  the  Gentiles  as  well  as  the 
Jews  to  receive  the  Messianic  salvation,  and 
would  thus  fulfil  the  most  universal  dreams  of 
the  Hebrew  prophets. 

There  is  only  one  more  comment  that  we 
have  to  make  on  these  passages.  In  the  Epistle 
to  the  Colossians  St.  Paul  tells  us  how  the 
cross  itself  was  an  act  of  triumph  over  evil 
spirits.  We  will  give  the  passage  in  Bishop 
Lightfoot's  paraphrase  : 

"•  Taking  upon  Him  our  human  nature.  He 
stripped  off  and  cast  aside  all  the  powers  of 
evil  which  clung  to  it  like  a  poisonous  gar- 
ment.    As  a  mighty  conqueror  He  displayed 


THE  POWERS  OF  EVIL  87 

these   His   fallen   enemies    to    an    astonished 
world,  leading  them  in  triumph  on  His  cross.  "^ 

It  was  a  part  of  the  Messianic  expectation 
that  the  Messiah  should  triumph  over  the 
powers  of  evil,  and  the  Book  of  Revelation  re- 
presents to  us  a  picture  of  the  last  great  victory 
over  evil.  But  the  Christian  soon  saw  that 
this  triumph  over  evil  had  been  gained  on  the 
cross  itself.  If  we  were  to  translate  the  idea 
into  modern  phraseology,  we  should  say  that 
the  death  of  Christ  on  the  cross  was  a  great 
triumph  of  good  over  evil,  and  to  St.  Paul,  as 
to  all  Christians,  it  was  symbolical  of  the  defeat 
and  scattering  of  all  the  spiritual  powers  that 
war  against  the  God  of  mankind. 

We  have  already  noticed  that  it  is  difficult, 
when  we  are  dealing  with  St.  Paul's  language 
to  say  when  symbolism  begins.  No  doubt  he 
believed,  as  all  his  contemporaries  believed,  in 
malevolent  spiritual  beings  endowed  with  per- 
sonality ;  no  doubt  his  language  corresponds 
to  a  certain  extent  to  some  such  conception  ; 
but  it  is  noticeable  how  often,  when  he 
is  speaking  of  sin,  he  tends  to  evade  the 
purely  personal  language.  What  was  a  fact 
to  him  was  that  the  cross  of  Christ  had  de- 
stroyed the   evil   tendencies  in  himself.     He 

1  Lightfoot,  ^' Colossians, "  ed.  2,  p.  178. 


88  THE  WORK  OF  CHRIST 

describes  that,  as  everyone  would  at  the  time, 
as  the  defeat  of  evil  spirits.  What  was 
real  to  him  was  his  own  experience.  What 
was  conventional  was  the  language.  We  are 
not  doing  any  injustice  or  exhibiting  any  un- 
reality in  the  interpretation  of  the  words  if  we 
refer  them  primarily  to  the  spiritual  experience, 
and  make  their  truth  independent  of  the  fact 
whether  or  not  we  believe  in  evil  spirits.  It 
is  sometimes  really  difficult  to  know  how  sig- 
nificant even  to  St.  Paul  himself  was  this 
belief. 

V 

It  is  part  of  the  inexhaustible  character  of 
Christian  teaching  and  of  St.  Paul's  language 
that  no  attempt  to  analyze  his  teaching  is  ever 
complete,  and  all  that  it  is  possible  for  us  to 
do  is  to  comment,  as  we  have  done,  on  certain 
leading  thoughts.  There  is  much  that  we 
have  omitted.  There  is  much  that  the  further 
study  of  St.  Paul's  teaching  from  other  points 
of  view  would  bring  out.  It  remains  now  to 
consider  the  question  of  the  relation  of  the 
teaching  of  St.  Paul  to  the  teaching  of  the 
Church. 

Fundamentally,  the  significance  of  the  death 
of  Christ  was  part  of  what  St.  Paul  learnt 
from   the   primitive  Church  and  shared  with 


CHURCH  TEACHING  89 

them.  That  this  is  so  is  quite  clear  in  accord- 
ance with  his  own  definite  statement,  which 
we  have  quoted  above,  that  what  he  had  re- 
ceived, and  what  others  preached,  was  that 
Christ  Jesus  died  for  our  sins  in  accordance  with 
the  Scriptures.  There  is  no  reason  for  doubting 
this  statement,  and  a  study  of  early  Christian 
literature  will  fully  corroborate  it.  No  doubt 
it  required  some  time  for  the  first  Christians 
to  overcome  the  shock  of  Christ's  death  and 
to  realize  its  full  meaning.  The  early  tentative 
stage  is  represented  for  us  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  but  the  prominent  position  which 
the  death  of  Christ  and  all  that  it  did  for  us 
holds  in  early  Christian  literature  is  conclusive 
evidence.  In  no  sense  can  the  Book  of  Revela- 
tion be  described  as  a  Pauline  work.  But  one 
of  its  most  predominating  thoughts  is  the 
picture  of  the  Lamb  that  had  been  slain,  and 
that  vision  unites  the  significance  of  Christ's 
death  with  its  sacrificial  interpretation.  The 
same  is  true  of  Hebrews  and  1  Peter.  Neither 
of  these  works  is  really  Pauline,  although  both 
are  influenced  by  Pauline  teaching.  Both  de- 
velop the  significance  of  the  death  of  Christ, 
but  each  in  its  own  way. 

A  further  proof  might  be  found  in  St.  Paul's 
own  method  of  teaching.     Quite  clearly,  he  is 


90  THE  WORK  OF  CHRIST 

always  dealing  with  a  fact  the  significance  of 
which  is  recognized.  There  are  some  things 
which  he  has  to  prove.  In  other  cases  it  was 
only  necessary  for  him  to  allude  to  what  was 
known.  When  he  comes  to  deal  with  the 
relation  of  Christ's  death  to  the  law  or  to 
the  call  of  the  Gentiles,  then  he  has  to  prove 
his  point  as  best  he  can  ;  but  one  of  the  facts 
that  he  can  assume  is  that  the  Church  recog- 
nizes that  the  death  of  our  Lord  meant  the 
remission  of  sins-  -that  Christ  had  died  for  our 
sins.  That  he  could  assume,  whatever  else  he 
had  to  prove. 

This  is  quite  clear,  but  it  is  apparent  also 
that,  while  the  fundamental  doctrine  represents 
the  normal  teaching  of  the  Christian  Church, 
a  certain  amount  of  the  development  was 
definitely  Pauline,  and  it  may  be  a  little 
difficult  to  distinguish  where  the  particular 
teaching  peculiar  to  himself  begins.  It 
was  not,  I  think,  to  him  that  we  owe 
the  sacrificial  interpretation  of  the  death 
of  Christ.  He  never  lays  emphasis  on  it,  but 
refers  to  it  always  by  allusions,  and  it  was 
not  he  who  developed  its  significance.  INI  ore - 
over,  it  is  probably  early,  as  the  parallel 
evidence  of  the  Apocalypse  suggests.  But  all 
that  he  says  about  the  passing  away  of  the 


THE  TEACHING  OF  CHRIST     91 

law  and  the  inclusion  of  the  Gentiles  seems 
to  represent  ideas  specifically  his  own.  We  do 
not  mean  that  these  two  thoughts  were  in 
themselves  necessarily  due  to  St.  Paul.  That 
is  a  question  which  we  shall  discuss  later  ;  but 
that  the  arguments  by  which  he  defends  them, 
and  in  particular  the  connection  which  he 
finds  between  these  ideas  and  the  Crucifixion, 
come  from  himself  cannot,  I  think,  be  doubted. 
His  arguments  do  not  appeal  to  us.  They  are 
hardly,  perhaps,  such  as  the  early  Church 
would  have  formulated.  But  they  are  quite 
in  accordance  with  the  theological  training  and 
intellectual  conceptions  of  St.  Paul.  He  is,  in 
fact,  using  his  training  as  a  Pharisee  to  enable 
him  to  forge  arguments  destructive  to  Phari- 
saism. 

But  there  is  a  further  and  deeper  question. 
What  is  the  relation  of  the  significance  that 
the  early  Church  saw  in  the  death  of  Christ  to 
the  teaching  of  Jesus  Himself?  Christianity 
became  possible  when  it  was  recognized  that 
the  Crucifixion  was  not  a  sign  of  failure,  but 
a  sign  of  triumph.  It  was,  in  fact,  part  of 
the  ordained  purpose  of  God.  The  first 
Christians  learnt  to  believe  this  because  they 
believed  in  the  Resurrection,  and  then  because 
they  found  that  the  Crucifixion  fulfilled  much 


92  THE  WORK  OF  CHRIST 

that  they  had  not  understood  before  in  Scrip- 
ture ;  that  is  because  they  experienced  its  full 
meaning  and  significance  in  their  own  religious 
lives.  But  were  they  helped  also  by  any  teaching 
of  our  Lord  ?  Did  He  foretell  His  death  ?  Did 
He  understand  its  significance  ?  Was  it  part 
of  His  conception  of  His  office  ?  Clearly,  if 
we  believe  the  Gospels,  He  did  teach  about 
His  death.  They  represent  Him  to  us  as 
explicitly  foretelling  it.  More  important  than 
the  explicitness  of  the  prophecies  is  the  way 
in  which  they  are  introduced.  There  is  no 
incident  which  bears  the  marks  of  reality  more 
clearly  than  the  confession  of  St.  Peter.  Still 
more  the  action  of  our  Lord  which  followed 
it,  and  St.  Peter's  rebuke.  The  early  part  of 
our  Lord's  ministry  seems  to  represent  Him 
as  gradually  winning  over  His  disciples  to  the 
belief  that  He  was  the  JVIessiah.  So  soon  as 
they  have  learnt  that.  He  begins  to  make  them 
realize  how  different  He  was  from  the  Messiah 
that  they  expected.  He  tells  them  of  His 
death  and  suffering,  and  immediately  Peter 
rebukes  Him.  The  whole  series  of  events 
and  the  attitude  of  the  disciples  are  absolutely 
natural.  Moreover,  unless  we  presuppose 
that  our  Lord  intended  to  teach  everything 
which  was   implied   in   the   meaning   of  His 


THE  TEACHING  OF  CHRIST     93 

death,  we  have  to  omit  much  of  what  is  most 
distinctive  in  His  teaching.  His  ethical 
teaching  depends  largely  upon  the  thought 
of  self-sacrifice,  and  in  particular  His  own 
sacrifice  of  Himself;  and  if  this  be  so, 
there  can  be  no  reason  for  doubting  that  the 
explicit  allusions  to  the  significance  of  His 
death  come  from  Him.  Always  we  shall  find 
that  the  Christian  teaching  is  the  development 
of  the  principles  which  Christ  taught ;  and  if, 
as  we  believe,  He  said  that  the  Son  of  man 
came  not  to  be  '*  ministered  unto,  but  to 
minister,"  that  He  "  gave  his  life  as  a  ransom 
for  many  " ;  if  He  implied  in  the  Last  Supper, 
as  all  our  accounts  represent,  the  sacrificial 
significance  of  His  death,  then  we  find  that 
it  is  quite  natural  that  the  starting  of  what 
the  Christian  Church  taught  should  be  what 
Christ  Himself  had  taught  them. 

In  the  development  of  this  thought  St.  Paul 
fills  a  considerable  but  not  exclusive  place. 
The  Atonement  was  a  fact,  not  a  doctrine,  and 
it  was  as  a  fact  that  it  was  accepted  by  the 
early  Church.  The  meaning  and  significance 
of  the  Atonement  have  formed  one  of  the 
chief  subjects  discussed  in  the  Christian 
Church  throughout  the  Christian  centuries. 
The   starting-point   was   not   St.    Paul's   Ian- 


94  THE  WORK  OF  CHRIST 

guage  or  thought.  It  was  the  fundamental 
fact  of  Christian  history.  The  Christian 
Church  had  already  begun  to  speculate 
on  the  meaning  of  the  death  of  Christ. 
St.  Paul  carries  on  and  deepens  the  dis- 
cussion. Some  of  his  thoughts  become  a 
common  part  of  Christian  tradition.  Some 
others  pass  away.  Part  of  his  most  distinctive 
teaching  dealt  with  what  was  only  a  passing 
controversy.  Part  of  what  he  taught  was 
never  quite  understood.  A  good  deal  of  his 
language  has  been  misinterpreted  in  different 
periods  of  Church  history,  and  has  formed  the 
Ijasis  of  partial  representations  of  his  teaching. 
For  there  has  been  much  which  has  been  very 
imperfect  in  Christian  theology,  both  in  its 
interpretation  of  St.  Paul's  language  and  its 
estimation  of  the  idea  of  the  Atonement,  and 
fundamentally  we  must  remember  that  the 
Atonement  has  always  been  greater  than  any- 
thing said  about  it. 


THE  SPIRIT 

The  Messianic  expectation — The  experience  of  the  Church 
— The  spirit  of  man  and  the  Spirit  of  God — The 
Spirit  personal — Christ  and  the  Spirit — The  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Spirit. 

One  of  the  characteristics  of  the  Messianic 
age  was  to  be  the  gift  of  the  Spirit.  It  was 
the  endowment  of  the  Messiah,  as  described 
in  the  Book  of  Isaiah  :  "  And  the  spirit  of  the 
Lord  shall  rest  upon  him,  the  spirit  of  wisdom 
and  understanding,  the  spirit  of  counsel  and 
might,  the  spirit  of  knowledge  and  of  the  fear 
of  the  Lord."'  "  The  spirit  of  the  Lord  God 
is  upon  me ;  because  the  Lord  hath  anointed 
me  to  preach  good  tidings  unto  the  meek."^ 
It  was  the  endowment  also  of  the  people  of 
the  Messiah,  according  to  the  expectations  of 
the  Book  of  Joel :  "  And  it  shall  come  to 
pass  afterward,  that  I  will  pour  out  my 
spirit  upon  all  flesh ;  and  your  sons  and  your 

^  Isa.  xi.  2.  2  isa.  Ixi.  1. 

95 


96  THE  SPIRIT 

daughters  shall  prophesy,  your  old  men  shall 
dream  dreams,  your  young  men  shall  see 
visions :  and  also  upon  the  servants  and  upon 
the  handmaids  in  those  days  will  I  pour  out 
my  spirit."  1  And  in  well-known  passages  in 
Ezekiel  we  read  :  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord  God  : 
Behold  I  will  open  your  graves,  and  cause 
you  to  come  up  out  of  your  graves,  O  my 
people.  .  .  .  And  I  will  put  my  spirit  in 
you  and  ye  shall  live."^  And  again  :  "  A  new 
heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit 
will  I  put  within  you.  .  .  .  And  I  will  put 
my  spirit  within  you  and  cause  you  to  walk 
in  my  statutes,  and  ye  shall  keep  my  judg- 
ments and  do  them."^ 

There  was  no  part  of  the  religious  experiences 
of  the  Apostolic  period  of  which  the  first 
Christians  were  more  certain  than  that  of  the 
gift  of  the  Spirit.  According  to  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  the  preaching  of  Christianity  had 
been  inaugurated  by  a  great  and  conspicuous 
outpouring  of  the  Spirit.  The  time  foretold 
by  the  Prophet  Joel  seemed  to  have  arrived. 
But  even  those  who  are  inclined  to  doubt  the 
historical  character  of  that  narrative  must  be 
convinced  by  the  continuous  allusions  to  the 

1  Joel  ii.  28*  29.  ^  Ezek.  xxxvii.  12,  14. 

3  Ezek.  xxxvi.  26,  27. 


THE  GIFT  OF  THE  SPIRIT       97 

manifestation  of  the  Spirit  in  the  normal 
life  of  the  Church.  It  is  quite  certain  that 
phenomena  occurred,  however  they  may  be 
explained,  which  were  described  as  the  work 
of  the  Spirit,  and  were  felt  to  be  an  inspiration 
from  God.  The  evidence  for  this  permeates 
the  whole  literature  of  the  Apostolic  period, 
and  is  particularly  conspicuous  in  the  writings 
of  St.  Paul.  He  recognized,  too,  that  what  he 
believed  and  experienced  was  also  the  belief 
and  experience  even  of  his  opponents.  This 
was  one  of  those  points  of  contact  to  which 
he  could  appeal  as  common  with  those  who 
differed  from  him  in  other  respects.  "  Received 
ye  the  Spirit  by  the  works  of  the  law,  or  the 
hearing  of  faith  ?"^  he  asks  the  Galatians. 

This  gift  of  the  Spirit  was  realized  by 
the  possession  of  supernatural  or  miraculous 
powers,  by  the  phenomenon  called  "  speaking 
with  tongues,"  by  the  power  of  prophecy  or 
inspired  preaching,  by  quickened  zeal  and 
earnestness,  by  a  richer,  fuller,  better  life. 
"  The  fruit  of  the  Spirit  is  love,  joy,  peace, 
longsufFering,  kindness,  goodness,  faithfulness, 
meekness,  temperance."^ 

We  have  to  ask  how  St.  Paul  conceived  of 
the  Spirit. 

1  Gal.  iii.  2.  2  Gal.  v.  22. 

13 


98  THE  SPIRIT 


It  is  quite  clear  that  the  word  "  Spirit "  is 
used  in  a  double  sense.     There  is  the  human 
spirit   and   the  Divine    Spirit.      The  clearest 
passage   is   in   the   Epistle    to   the    Romans: 
*'  The  Spirit  himself  beareth  witness  with  our 
spirit,  that  we  are  children  of  God."^     The 
psychology  of  St.  Paul  has  always  presented 
great  difficulties,  because  he  did  not  think  of 
it,  and  did  not   attempt  to  express  it,  in  a 
scientific  manner.     And  the  difficulty  has  been 
increased  by  the  interpreters,  who  have  tried 
to  find  in  his  writings  the  evidence  of  a  dualism 
derived  from  Hellenic  thought.     This  is  erro- 
neous, and  will  not  bear  examination.     There 
is  no  fundamental  dualism  in  St.  Paul.     His 
method  of  thought  was  that  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  in  his  own  mind  he  seems  to  have 
conceived    of    human   nature   as   one.       The 
whole   man   can   be   sanctified,  as  the  whole 
man  can  become  the  slave  of  sin ;   but  just 
as  the  weak  part  of  human  nature,  the  flesh, 
is   specially    liable  to  be   influenced    by  evil, 
so  there  is  a  faculty  in  man,  the  spirit,  which 
is  responsive  to  the  Divine  Spirit.     The  one 
may  become  the  seat  of  sin,  which  can  thus 

1  Rom.  viii.  l6. 


DIVINE  AND  HUMAN  SPIRIT     99 

tyrannize  over  the  whole  nature  of  the  man  ; 
the  other,  through  the  power  of  the  Divine 
Spirit,  is  strengthened  to  overpower  all  evil 
tendencies. 

This  is  the  gift  of  the  Spirit :  "  God  has  sent 
the  Spirit  of  his  Son  into  our  hearts."^  This 
Spirit  is  the  "  Divine  or  Holy  Spirit,"  the 
'*  Spirit  of  Christ,"  the  "  Spirit  of  God." 

So  far  there  is  not  much  difficulty.  The 
fact  of  the  Christian  experience  is  undoubted, 
and  the  normal  explanation  of  that  experience 
is  equally  clear.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
St.  Paul  believed  that  his  own  inspiration 
and  the  transformation  of  his  life  were  due 
to  a  Divine  influence  or  emanation,  which  had 
seized  upon  and  dominated  his  life,  and  that 
there  was  a  faculty  in  himself  responsive  to 
its  working.  But  here  our  difficulty  begins. 
It  is  not  easy  at  first  sight  to  know  what  St. 
Paul  thought  of  the  Spirit  in  its  own  nature. 
About  its  work  he  is  clear ;  and  even  if  the 
phenomena  are  strange  and  unusual,  their 
general  nature  and  the  nature  of  the  new  life 
is  something  we  can  understand.  But  as  to 
St.  Paul's  opinion  about  what  the  Spirit  itselt 
is  we  have  great  difficulty,  probably  because 
his  way  of  looking  at  things  was  very 
1  Gal.  iv.  6. 


100  THE  SPIRIT 

different  from  our  own.  There  are  three  main 
questions  :  Did  St.  Paul  think  of  the  Spirit 
as  personal  ?  What  is  the  relation  of  the 
Spirit  to  Christ  ?  How  did  St.  Paul  conceive 
the  relation  of  the  Father  to  the  Son  and 
Spirit  ? 

II 

Now,  here  is  one  of  the  points  where  there  is 
a  great  difference  in  thought  between  the  habit 
of  mind  in  our  own  day  and  in  the  Apostolic 
times.  According  to  Christian  tradition,  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  Personal,  and  is  looked  upon  as 
one  of  the  Three  Persons  of  the  Trinity.  The 
modern  mind  is  inclined  to  distrust  the  whole 
conception,  and  when  a  Christian  dogmatist 
attempts  to  find  a  "  Personal  "  Spirit  in  St. 
Paul's  writings,  it  accuses  him  of  forcing  the 
Apostolic  thought  into  his  own  dogmatic 
framework.  It  is  very  probable  that  it  is 
the  modernist  commentator  who  is  really 
guilty  of  a  forced  interpretation. 

Our  ordinary  habit  at  the  present  day  is 
to  think  of  spirit  as  something  impersonal. 
We  normally  use  the  term  in  such  an  ex- 
pression as  the  "  spirit  of  freedom,"  to  mean  a 
certain  tendency  of  mind ;  or  at  the  most  we 
think  of  it  as  some  impersonal  influence  arising 
from  outside.     We  are  naturally  inclined  to 


PERSONALITY  OF  THE  SPIRIT     101 

interpret  St.  Paul  also  in  that  way,  but  in 
doing  so  we  probably  fail  to  give  adequate 
force  to  the  language  that  he  uses,  and  are 
also  unhistorical  in  our  exegesis.  We  are 
interpreting  him  by  the  ideas  of  the  Twentieth 
century,  and  not  by  those  of  his  own  time. 

Let  us  examine  a  well-known  passage 
describing  the  Spirit  as  the  source  of  gifts : 
"To  each  one  is  given  the  manifestation  of 
the  Spirit  to  profit  withal.  For  to  one  is 
given  through  the  Spirit  the  word  of  wisdom  ; 
and  to  another  the  word  of  knowledge,  accord- 
ing to  the  same  Spirit ;  to  another  faith,  in  the 
same  Spirit ;  and  to  another  gifts  of  healings, 
in  the  one  Spirit ;  and  to  another  workings  of 
miracles  ;  and  to  another  prophecy ;  and  to 
another  discernings  of  spirits ;  to  another 
divers  kinds  of  tongues ;  and  to  another  the 
interpretation  of  tongues :  but  all  these  v/orketh 
the  one  and  the  same  Spirit,  dividing  to  each 
one  severally  even  as  he  will."^  The  argument 
of  this  passage  is  very  significant.  Spiritual 
gifts  are  so  varied  that  it  might  be  held  that 
there  were  many  spirits  from  whom  they  came. 
Very  probably  some  of  the  Corinthians  did  so 
think.  Just  as  it  was  well  known  that  there 
was  a  whole  army  of  evil  spirits,  some  more 

1  1  Cor.  xii.  7-11. 

14 


102  THE  SPIRIT 

important  and  powerful  than  the  others,  who 
were  the  cause  of  all  our  evil  thoughts,  so  it 
w^as  natural  to  think  that  there  were  many 
good  spirits,  and  very  probably  the  Corinthians 
were  arguing  that  one  man  had  a  better  spirit 
than  another.  Against  these  St.  Paul  asserts 
clearly  that  the  Spirit  was  one,  just  as  the 
Father  and  the  Son  were  one,  and  bases  on 
this  unity  of  the  Spirit  the  unity  of  the  life  of 
the  Church. 

The  particular  point  of  importance  for  us  to 
notice  is  that  it  would  be  quite  natural  for  the 
Corinthians  to  ascribe  the  spiritual  manifesta- 
tions which  they  experienced  to  the  influence 
of  many  spirits,  which  they  would  think  of  in 
some  sense  as  personal.  This  opinion  is  thus 
described  by  Mr.  Lake  : 

"  According  to  popular  opinion,  the  world 
was  full  of  spirits,  good  and  bad,  which  were 
able  to  take  possession  of,  or  to  obsess,  not 
only  human  beings,  but  even  inanimate  ob- 
jects. One  of  the  main  reasons  for  which 
the  ordinary  man  took  part  in  rehgious  cere- 
monies was  to  avoid  obsession  by  evil  daemons, 
and  to  secure  obsession  or  inspiration  by  good 
spirits."^ 

1  Kirsopp  Lake,  **  The  Earlier  Epistles  of  St.  Paul," 
p.  192. 


THE  SPIRIT  ONE  103 

This  belief  in  a  plurality  of  good  spirits  St. 
Paul  combats.  To  him  the  Spirit  was  one,  and 
this,  he  held,  was  of  immense  importance  for  the 
right  conception  of  the  unity  of  the  Christian 
life.  But  while  he  combats  the  idea  of  plurality, 
the  language  that  he  employs  seems  to  imply 
that  he  shares  (as  it  was  natural  that  he 
should)  the  idea  of  personality.  The  one 
Spirit  is  correlated  with  the  one  Lord  and 
the  one  God,  and  the  action  of  this  one  Spirit 
is  spoken  of  in  language  which  we  should 
undoubtedly  think  of  as  implying  personality. 
**  But  all  these  worketh  the  one  and  the  same 
Spirit,  dividing  to  each  one  severally  as  he 
will." 

When  we  pass  to  other  passages  of  the 
Epistles,  we  find  a  great  deal  which  seems  to 
support  this  conclusion.  There  are,  of  course, 
many  passages  which  are  ambiguous  ;  there 
are,  however,  none  which  are  inconsistent 
with  a  conception  of  personality,  and  many 
which  seem  to  imply  it.  Take,  for  example, 
the  eighth  chapter  of  the  Romans :  The  Spirit 
of  God  dwells  in  us.^  We  are  led  by  the 
Spirit.^  "  The  Spirit  himself  beareth  witness 
with  our  spirit,  that  we  are  children  of  God."^ 
And  most  remarkable  is   the   final   passage : 

1  Rom.  viii.  11.         ^  Rom.  viii.  14.         ^  Rom.  viii.  l6. 


104  THE  SPIRIT 

'*And  in  like  manner  the  Spirit  also  helpeth 
our  infirmity :  for  we  know  not  how  to  pray 
as  we  ought ;  but  the  Spirit  himself  maketh 
intercession  for  us  with  groanings  which  can- 
not be  uttered  ;  and  he  that  searcheth  the 
hearts  knoweth  what  is  the  mind  of  the  Spirit, 
because  he  maketh  intercession  for  the  saints 
according  to  the  will  of  God."^ 

There  is  another  very  remarkable  passage 
in  1  Corinthians.  The  Spirit  is  the  organ  of 
revelation,  searcheth,  knoweth,  teacheth  :  "  But 
unto  us  God  revealed  them  through  the  Spirit : 
for  the  Spirit  searcheth  all  things,  yea,  the  deep 
things  of  God.  For  who  among  men  knoweth 
the  things  of  a  man,  save  the  spirit  of  the  man 
which  is  in  him  ?  even  so  the  things  of  God 
none  knoweth,  save  the  Spirit  of  God.  .  .  . 
Which  things  also  we  speak,  not  in  words 
which  man's  wisdom  teacheth,  but  which  the 
Spirit  teacheth."^ 

Tlien  there  is  a  passage  in  2  Corinthians, 
not,  indeed,  free  from  ambiguity,  but  very 
much  more  impressive  if  we  accept  the  idea 
that  St.  Paul  considered  the  Spirit  to  be 
personal :  "  Ye  are  our  epistle,  written  in  our 
hearts,  known  and  read  of  all  men ;  being 
made  manifest  that  ye  are  an  epistle  of  Christ, 

1  Rom.  viii.  26,  27.  ^   1  Cor.  ii.  10-13. 


PERSONALITY  OF  THE  SPIRIT     105 

ministered  by  us,  written  not  with  ink,  but 
with  the  Spirit  of  the  hving  God."^ 

There  are  other  remarkable  passages  in  later 
Epistles  :  "  Grieve  not  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God, 
in  whom  ye  were  sealed  unto  the  day  of  re- 
demption."^ "But  the  Spirit  saith  expressly, 
that  in  later  times  some  shall  fall  away  from 
the  faith.  "2 

Now,  no  claim  is  made  that  these  passages 
are  free  from  difficulty.  We  cannot  demon- 
strate definitely  St.  Paul's  opinion.  But  if 
we  remember  what  were  the  intellectual  con- 
ceptions of  St.  Paul's  day,  and  the  language 
used  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament,  the 
interpretation  of  the  Spirit  as  personal  be- 
comes the  natural  one.  And  a  careful  reader 
will  find  that  a  fuller  meaning  is  given  to 
St.  Paul's  language  throughout  if  he  realizes 
that  St.  Paul  always  conceived  of  the  Spirit  as 
acting  in  a  way  which  we  should  call  personal. 
It  may  be  true  that  the  idea  of  personality  was 
not  so  clearly  defined  in  the  ancient  world  as 
it  is  with  us,  and  that  St.  Paul  had  never  asked 
himself  the  question  if  or  how  the  personality 
of  the  Spirit  was  distinguished  from  the  per- 
sonality of  the  Father  ;  but  any  difficulty  that 
we  may  have  in  understanding  him  will  be 

1  2  Cor.  iii.  2,  3.         2  Eph.  iv.  30.         ^  1  Tim.  iv.  1. 


106  THE  SPIRIT 

much  diminished  if  we  refrain  from  reading 
into  the  New  Testament  our  modern  con- 
ceptions. The  rationahst  interpretation  is 
always  least  true  to  the  mind  of  St.  Paul. 


Ill 

It  is  well  known  that  a  certain  number  of 
theologians,  and  particularly  Professor  Pflei- 
derer,  have  contended  that  to  St.  Paul  Christ 
was  the  Spirit.  This  interpretation  cannot  be 
maintained,  but  the  fact  that  it  can  be  held  is 
most  significant.  It  shows  how  pronounced 
is  the  idea  of  personality  in  relation  to  the 
Spirit,  and  also  how  intimate  to  St.  Paul  is  the 
relationship  between  the  Spirit  and  Christ, 
between  the  work  of  the  Spirit  and  the  work 
of  Christ. 

The  passage  where  the  identification  seems 
most  complete  is  one  in  the  Second  Epistle 
to  the  Corinthians  :  "  Now  the  Lord  is  the 
Spirit :  and  where  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is, 
there  is  liberty.  But  we  all,  with  unveiled  ftice 
reflecting  as  a  mirror  the  glory  of  the  Lord, 
are  transformed  into  the  same  image  from 
glory  to  glory,  even  as  from  the  Lord  the 
Spirit."^     It  is  clear  that  we  must  here  trans- 

1  2  Cor.  iii.  17,  18. 


THE  SPIRIT  AND  CHRIST      107 

late  '*  the  Spirit,"  and  clearly  a  very  close  rela- 
tionship between  the  Lord  and  the  Spirit  is 
implied.  We  notice,  however,  that  the  force 
of  the  argument  for  identity  of  the  Spirit 
with  Christ  is  weakened  very  considerably 
by  the  phrase  "  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord,"  im- 
mediately afterwards. 

St.  Paul  is  arguing  that  the  ministry  with 
which  he  is  entrusted  is  far  more  glorious  than 
that  of  the  Old  Covenant.  At  the  reading  of 
the  Old  Testament  there  remained  a  veil  un- 
lifted,  a  sign  of  the  veil  which  lay  on  the 
hearts  of  the  hearers.  This  veil  has  been 
done  away  in  Christ.  If  a  man  turn  to  the 
Lord,  the  veil  is  lifted  from  his  heart.  That 
is  because  Christ  means  the  Spirit,  for  where 
Christ's  Spirit  is  there  is  the  freedom  of  the 
Gospel.  Our  continuous  progress  from  glory 
to  glory  comes  from  the  Lord,  who  is  mani- 
fested in  the  Spirit. 

There  is  clearly  a  very  close  connection, 
which  impHes  an  identity  of  work.  The  ex- 
planation is  suggested  by  the  following  pas- 
sage :  "  But  ye  are  not  in  the  flesh,  but  in  the 
spirit,  if  so  be  that  the  Spirit  of  God  dwelleth 
in  you.  But  if  any  man  hath  not  the  Spirit 
of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  his.  And  if  Christ  is 
in  you,  the  body  is  dead  because  of  sin  ;  but 


108  THE  SPIRIT 

the  spirit  is  life  because  of  righteousness. 
But  if  the  Spiiit  of  him  that  raised  up  Jesus 
from  the  dead  dwelleth  in  you,  he  that  raised 
up  Christ  Jesus  from  the  dead  shall  quicken 
also  your  mortal  bodies  through  his  Spirit  that 
dwelleth  in  you."^  A  careful  study  of  the 
above  passage  shows  a  very  close  relationship 
between  God,  the  Spirit,  and  Christ.  The 
Spirit  is  the  Spirit  of  God  and  of  Christ. 
The  Spirit  is  in  us,  and  Christ  is  in  us,  yet 
the  Spirit  is  distinguished  from  Christ  as  the 
Spirit  of  Him  that  raised  Him  from  the  dead, 
and  it  is  He  that  works  in  us  through  the 
Spirit.  The  thought  which  seems  most  ade- 
quately to  explain  such  a  passage  seems  to 
be  that  Christ  dwells  in  us  through  the  Spirit, 
which  is  the  Spirit  equally  of  the  Father  and 
of  the  Son. 

And  here  we  reach  the  limits  of  St.  Paul's 
language.  It  is  Christ  in  us  that  is  identified 
with  the  Spirit,  because  He  dwells  in  us  through 
His  Spirit.  But  the  Christ  that  lived  and  was 
crucified  is  never  in  any  way  identified  with 
the  Spirit.  The  distinction  is  clear  and  em- 
phatic. 

Christ  dwells  in  us  through  the  Spirit,  but 
this  Spirit  has  a  close  relation  to  the  Father. 
1  Rom,  viii.  9-11. 


THE  SPIRIT  AND  THE  FATHER     109 

The  Spirit  of  Christ  comes  from  the  Father. 
"  Because  ye  are  sons,  God  sent  forth  the 
Spirit  of  his  Son  into  our  hearts."^  And  not 
only  is  it  the  Spirit  of  Christ  coming  from  the 
Father,  it  is  the  Spirit  of  God.  God's  love 
is  poured  forth  in  our  hearts  through  the 
Holy  Spirit  which  is  given  us.^  Our  union 
with  God  in  love  comes  through  the  Spirit. 
"  The  Spirit  searcheth  all  things,  even  the 
deep  things  of  God."^  "The  things  of  God 
none  knoweth  save  the  Spirit  of  God."^  We 
are  a  temple  of  God  because  God's  Spirit 
dwelleth  in  us.^ 

Always  God  is  represented  as  working  in 
us  by  the  Spirit,  and  one  of  the  clearest  facts 
that  must  emerge  from  a  careful  study  of  all 
the  passages  in  which  the  word  occurs  is  the 
close  connection  of  the  Spirit  with  God,  and 
its  coming  forth  from  Him. 

Now,  the  question  must  inevitably  occur  to 
us,  How  did  St.  Paul  think  of  this  relation- 
ship of  God,  Christ,  Spirit,  or  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  the  Spirit  ?  Within  certain  limits  and 
in  certain  directions  the  three  words  are  almost 
interchangeable.  St.  Paul  can  speak  of  God 
dwelling  in  us,  of  Christ  in  us  and  we  in  Him, 

I  Gal.  iv.  6.  2  Roju.  v.  5.  ^1  Cor.  ii.  10. 

^  1  Cor.  ii.  11.  M  Cor.  iii.  l6,  17,  vi.  19. 


110  THE  SPIRIT 

of  the  Spirit  within  us.  He  can  say  the  Spirit 
of  God  or  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  He  can  speak 
of  God  being  in  Christ,  and  of  the  Spirit  being 
in  Christ.  He  can  speak  of  us  as  in  Christ  or 
in  the  Spirit.  But  he  can  also  speak  of  Christ 
being  raised  by  the  Spirit.  It  is  difficult  for 
us  to  see  quite  how  St.  Paul  thought  of  these 
things. 

And  then  there  is  another  set  of  passages 
where  the  three  are  co-ordinated  together  in  a 
more  striking  manner :  '*  Now  there  are  diver- 
sities of  gifts,  but  the  same  Spirit.  And  there 
are  diversities  of  ministrations,  and  the  same 
Lord.  And  there  are  diversities  of  workings, 
but  the  same  God  who  worketh  all  things  in 
all."^  God,  the  Lord,  the  Spirit,  are  co- 
ordinated together  ;  the  Spirit  is  one,  as  are 
God  and  the  Lord — there  is  but  one  Source 
of  all  these  gifts ;  and  in  these  gifts  the  Three 
work  together.  Then  there  is  the  well-known 
grace  :  "  The  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  the  love  of  God,  and  the  fellowship  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."  ^  And  then,  again,  in  Ephesians  : 
**  There  is  one  body,  and  one  Spirit,  even  as 
also  ye  were  called  in  one  hope  of  your  call- 
ing ;  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,  one 
God  and  Father  of  all."  ^ 

1  1  Cor.  xil  4-6.         2  2  Cor.  xiii.  14.         3  Eph.  iv.  4,  5. 


THE  TRINITY  111 

What  ultimately  does  this  language  imply, 
parallel  as  it  is  to  other  passages  in  the  New 
Testament  ?  The  Christian  Church,  studying 
these  passages,  has  formulated  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity ;  and  after  a  careful  and  full 
study  of  St.  Paul's  words  it  is  difficult  not  to 
believe  that  he  thought  of  the  Spirit  as  a  benefi- 
cent Divine  personality  coming  forth  from 
the  Father,  being  of  both  the  Father  and  the 
Son,  dwelling  in  and  inspiring  every  faithful 
Christian,  making  the  power  of  Christ,  of  whom 
He  is,  real  in  us,  inspiring  our  higher  nature, 
giving  us  a  new  personality,  a  new  power,  a 
new  life. 

St.  Paul  did  not  define — he  believed.  What 
he  believed  and  experienced  the  Christian 
Church  also  believed  and  experienced.  The 
coming  of  the  Spirit — the  promise  of  the 
Father — was  a  real  fact.  The  theology  was 
not  thought  out ;  all  the  implications  of  the 
language  used  were  not  reahzed.  We  cannot 
say  that  St.  Paul  formulated  a  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  in  Unity.  It  is  difficult  to  conceive 
how  he  realized  in  his  own  mind  the  relations 
of  the  Spirit,  Son,  and  Father  ;  but  the  tradi- 
tional theology  of  the  Church  alone  seems  to 
co-ordinate  and  account  for  all  the  different 
elements  of  his  belief. 


112  THE  SPIRIT 

IV 

Two  difficult  problems  are  raised  by  the 
questions  of  the  Personality  of  the  Spirit,  and 
the  development  of  the  idea  of  the  Christian 
Trinity. 

In  the  Old  Testament,  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah 
as  a  means  of  expressing  His  living  power  is  of 
frequent  occurrence.  God's  Spirit  works  in 
creation,  it  is  the  source  of  intellectual  gifts, 
it  inspires  the  prophets,  it  is  the  prerogative  of 
the  Messiah,  the  source  of  holiness.  But  a 
contrast  is  noted  with  the  New  Testament. 
The  Spirit  is  not  represented  as  the  source  of 
ordinary  gifts,  as  the  endowment  of  all  the 
people  of  God  ;  it  is  the  source  only  of  the 
special  inspiration  of  the  prophet.  The  pro- 
phets, however,  as  we  have  seen,  expect  a  great 
outpouring  of  the  Spirit  on  all  the  people  of 
God  in  the  days  to  come.  Nor  is  there  any 
separate  personality  ascribed  to  the  Spirit. 
''The  Old  Testament  attributes  personality 
to  the  Spirit  only  in  so  far  as  it  identifies  the 
Spirit  of  God  with  God  himself,  present  and 
operative  in  the  world  or  in  men."^ 

When  we  pass  to  the  theology  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  the  Spirit  is  habitually  spoken  of 
1  Swete  in  "  Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary,"  ii.  411. 


THE  SPIRIT  PERSONAL        113 

as  personal,  and  the  personality  of  the  Spkit 
is  made  the  subject  of  dogmatic  statements. 
The  question  is,  When  did  the  new  thought 
come  in  ?  If  the  argument  of  the  present 
chapter  be  correct,  the  answer  is  that  the 
belief  in  the  personality  of  the  Spirit  was  the 
necessary  outcome  of  the  Apostolic  preaching. 
What  is  certain  is  that  the  gift  of  the  Spirit 
was  one  of  the  most  real  of  the  experiences  of 
the  early  Church,  and  that  the  expectation  of 
the  prophets  had  been  fulfilled,  and  all  God's 
people  received  the  gift.  It  is  equally  certain 
that  the  Spirit  is  spoken  of,  not  only  in  St. 
Paul's  writings,  but  in  St.  John's,  in  language 
which  seems  to  imply  personality,  and  that 
there  is  a  certain  separateness  which  we  do 
not  find  in  the  Old  Testament.  If  that  be  so, 
we  may  hold  that  the  teaching  of  the  Christian 
Church  was  the  natural  interpretation  of  the 
language  of  the  New  Testament. 

But  a  further  point  arises  as  to  the  relation 
of  this  teaching  to  the  language  of  our  Lord 
Himself.  This  is  one  of  the  fundamental 
questions  the  answer  to  which  will  ultimately 
depend  upon  the  view  taken  of  the  teaching 
of  Jesus  as  recorded  in  St.  John's  Gospel.  In 
St.  Luke's  Gospel  the  risen  Lord  answers  His 
disciples  that  He  will  send  forth  the  promise 

15 


114  THE  SPIRIT 

of  the  Father,  and  bids  them  remain  in  the 
city  until  they  be  clothed  with  power  from  on 
high.^  In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  He  tells 
them  that  they  shall  receive  power  when  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  come  upon  them.^  At  the 
close  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel  there  is  the 
baptismal  formula.  It  is,  however,  in  St. 
John's  Gospel  that  the  fullest  and  richest 
teaching  about  the  Holy  Spirit  is  found. 
Does  that  represent  a  late  development  of 
Christian  speculation,  or  is  it  directly  based  on 
the  teaching  of  our  Lord  ?  It  is  a  problem 
which  meets  us  in  various  connections,  which 
will  confront  us  more  than  once  in  relation  to 
St.  Paul's  teaching.  It  is  sufficient  to  say  at 
present  that,  if  the  teaching  attributed  to  our 
Lord  in  St.  John's  Gospel  on  this  and  other 
points  be  directly  based  upon  words  of  our 
Lord,  if  these  discourses,  however  much  they 
may  be  developed  in  style,  are  historical  in 
matter,  the  growth  of  Christian  doctrine 
becomes  an  easy  problem ;  if  they  are  not 
historical,  it  is  full  of  perplexity  and  un- 
certainty. There  is  always  a  gap  which  has 
to  be  filled  up  somehow. 

The  chief  problem  in  relation  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  is  caused  by  the  difficulty  of 

1  Luke  xxiv.  4.9.  ^  Acts  i.  8. 


THE  BAPTISMAL  FORMULA     115 

understanding  how  writers  of  the  Apostolic 
age  thought  of  the  relations  of  Father,  Son, 
and  Spirit.  What  all  agree  upon  is  what 
may  be  called  an  Economic  Trinity.  The 
work  of  the  Father  as  the  Ruler  and  Creator, 
and  the  Source  of  all  authority  and  power  ;  the 
work  of  the  Son  as  Redeemer  and  Revealer ; 
the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  sanctifying  and 
inspiring — all  this  is  clear  and  certain.  There 
is  throughout  a  distinctness  of  function  and 
a  community  of  action.  The  first  beginnings 
of  formal  teaching  were  contained  in  the  bap- 
tismal formula.  Out  of  this  was  developed 
the  Christian  creed,  and  the  Christian  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  is  the  natural  systematization 
and  co-ordination  of  the  Apostolic  teaching. 
That  formula  is  ascribed  to  the  post-resurrec- 
tion teaching  of  our  Lord,  and  is  consequently 
the  subject  of  much  doubt  and  criticism.  But 
again  we  may  say  clearly  that  the  language  of 
St.  Paul,  the  development  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Church,  and  the  whole  of  Apostolic  teach- 
ing on  the  Divine  nature,  become  natural  and 
possible  if  they  were  based  on  some  such  sayings 
of  our  Lord. 


VI 

FAITH,  JUSTIFICATION,  SALVATION 

The  problem — Sin — Law — Faith — Justification — Salvation 
— The  source  of  St.  Paul's  teaching — Its  influence. 

The  religious  and  moral  ideal  of  the  Jew 
might  be  summed  up  in  the  word  "just." 
And  that  meant  to  him  "  upright  in  the  sight 
of  God."  It  is  interesting  to  contrast  this  ideal 
with  that  of  the  Greek  and  the  Roman.  The 
Hellenic  conception  was  summed  up  in  the 
word  "  virtue  ";  and  the  moral  ideal  was  repre- 
sented by  a  word  which  added  to  the  meaning 
of  "good"  the  associations  of  what  was  beautiful 
and  honourable  in  the  sight  of  men.  The 
Greek  moral  ideal  implied  all  that  was  of  good 
report  in  the  eyes  of  man.  So  the  Roman 
ideal  was  based  on  the  conception  of  duty  to 
the  State,  of  the  fulfilment  of  all  the  honourable 
obligations  which  a  man's  position  in  the  world 
and  his  duty  to  his  country  demanded ;  and 
the  only  typically  Roman  philosophy,  the  later 
Stoicism,  developed  this  ideal. 

116 


HOW  CAN  MAN  BE  JUSTIFIED  ?     117 

In  contrast  with  these,  the  Jewish  ideal 
was  that  of  uprightness  in  the  sight  of  God. 
Primarily  and  originally  it  was  uprightness  in 
this  life.  It  spoke  of  the  "  blessedness  of  the 
man  whose  delight  is  in  the  law  of  the  Lord  .  .  . 
whatsoever  he  doeth  it  shall  prosper."  To  this 
had  been  added  the  later  apocalyptic  ideal  of 
salvation  in  the  Last  Day  when  the  Messiah 
comes,  implying  a  judgement  and  life  in 
the  Kingdom  of  God.  Fundamentally  this 
uprightness  was  gained  by  keeping  "  the  law  "; 
the  conception  of  law  might  be  differently  in- 
terpreted by  different  Jewish  sects,  but  all 
would  probably  agree  that  the  man  who  kept 
the  law  was  justified  in  God's  sight,  and  the 
greater  number  of  people  would  also  add,  "  and 
would  obtain  salvation  at  the  Last  Day." 

Quite  early  the  question  how  a  man  could 
be  justified  became  acute  in  the  Christian 
Church.  How  could  he  be  held  upright  by 
God  ?  What  had  he  to  do  ?  And  the  answer 
turned  on  the  law.  The  Messiah  had  come. 
Jesus  was  the  JNIessiah.  All  Christians  alike 
recognized  that.  Those  who  became  followers 
of  Him  could  receive  salvation  at  the  Last  Day. 
But  what  were  the  obligations  of  discipleship  ? 
Naturally,  the  first  disciples  went  on  living 
their  ordinary  Jewish  life.     But  then  came  the 

16 


118  ZEAL  FOR  GOD  AND  THE  LAW 

conversion  of  the  Gentiles,  and  inevitably  the 
question  must  arise,  What  did  Christianity 
mean  for  them  ?  The  Jew,  when  he  believed 
and  was  baptized,  went  on  living  as  a  Jew. 
What  had  the  Gentile  to  do  ?  What  were 
his  obligations?  Must  he  accept  the  whole 
Jewish  law?  Some  said,  Yes.  Or  might  he 
go  on  living  just  as  he  had  done  before, 
take  part  in  idol  feasts,  and  live  the  ordinary 
non-moral  Gentile  life?  His  sins  would  be 
forgiven.  We  are  not  concerned  now  with 
the  details  of  the  history  of  the  controversy. 
We  are  concerned  rather  with  St.  Paul's 
solution  of  the  questions  asked. 

St.  Paul  had  been  more  eager  for  righteous- 
ness than  any  of  his  contemporaries.  He  was 
zealous  for  God,  zealous  for  the  law.  The 
desire  to  fulfil  God's  will  was  always  with  him 
an  overmastering  passion.  With  him  it  was 
not  primarily  a  zeal  for  salvation.  The  high- 
minded  Pharisee  kept  the  law  as  the  greatest 
thing  on  earth.  He  had  a  lofty  ethical  ideal, 
and  this  had  a  profound  effect  on  St.  Paul. 
It  is  one  of  the  limitations  of  the  commentator, 
whose  one  clue  to  the  interpretation  of  Pauline 
thought  is  eschatology,  that  he  forgets  that 
fundamentally  and  originally  it  was  upright- 
ness in  God's  sight  in  this  life  that  was  the 


ST.  PAUL'S  ANSWER  119 

Jewish  aim,  an  aim  which  is  equally  present  in 
Christianity.  Christianity,  rightly  interpreted, 
is  not  always  or  only  an  other-world  religion. 

The  strength  with  which  St.  Paul  held  his 
Jewish  ideal  made  the  change,  when  it  came, 
far  more  complete  for  him.  He  could  not 
remain  satisfied,  as  could  many  early  Chris- 
tians, with  a  compromise.  He  saw  the  whole 
issue  clearly  and  logically,  and  the  needs  of 
controversy  compelled  him  to  formulate  his 
opinions.  Hence  on  this  subject  St.  Paul 
expounds  his  views  more  systematically  and 
methodically  than  on  any  other  point.  So  far 
we  have  generally  had  to  piece  his  opinions 
together  from  isolated  inferences.  Now  it  is 
different.  First  controversially  in  Galatians 
he  hammers  out  his  principles  ;  then  in 
Romans  quietly  and  calmly,  with  the  strength 
that  comes  after  the  conflict,  when  the  victory 
is  won,  in  a  manner  true  for  all  time,  he  lays 
down  his  conclusions.  We  cannot,  therefore, 
do  better  that  follow  his  own  argument. 

I 

St.  Paul's  starting-point  is  the  fact  of  sin. 
Mankind  everywhere  had  fallen  away  from  the 
will  of  God,  and  had  exposed  themselves  to 
His  wrath.     This  the  Apostle  proves  in  that 


120  ZEAL  FOR  GOD  AND  THE  LAW 

tremendous  indictment  of  his  age  which  occu- 
pies the  main  part  of  the  first  three  chapters 
of  the  Romans.  The  heathen  world  had  sinned. 
All  would  admit  that :  certainly  the  Jews  with 
whom  St.  Paul  was  arguing.  Was  not  their 
usual  expression  ''sinners  of  the  Gentiles"? 
But  it  was  equally  true  of  the  Jew,  who, 
although  he  knew  the  law,  dishonoured  God 
by  breaking  the  law.  And  Scripture,  without 
making  any  exceptions,  had  emphasized  that 
all  had  sinned  :  "  There  is  none  righteous,  no, 
not  one ;  there  is  none  that  understandeth, 
there  is  none  that  seeketh  after  God."^ 

But  St.  Paul  not  only  proves  his  thesis  by 
objective  fact ;  he  can  appeal  to  his  own  sub- 
jective experience.  He  describes  to  us  the 
struggle  which  had  taken  place  in  his  own  self. 
He  had  devoted  all  his  power  to  doing  what 
he  believed  to  be  the  will  of  God.  The  law 
had  put  before  him  the  ideal  that  he  was  to 
fulfil ;  he  had  striven  to  do  so,  but  he  had 
always  failed.  "Sin,  taking  occasion  by  the 
commandment,  deceived  me,  and  by  it  slew 
me  .  .  .  what  I  would,  that  I  do  not ;  but  what 
I  hate,  that  do  I.  Now  it  is  no  more  I  that 
do  it,  but  sin  that  dwelleth  in  me  ...  I  know 
that  in  me  (that  is,  in  my  flesh)  dwelleth  no 

^  Rom.  iii.  10,  11  (Ps.  xiv.  1  et  seq.). 


SIN  121 

good  thing  ;  for  to  will  is  present  with  me : 
but  how  to  perform  that  which  is  good  I  find 
not.  ...  I  see  another  law  in  my  members, 
warring  against  the  law  of  my  mind,  and 
bringing  me  into  captivity  to  the  law  of  sin 
which  is  in  my  members."  And  then  he  con- 
cludes :  '*  O  wretched  man  that  I  am  !  who 
shall  deliver  me  from  the  body  of  this  death  ?"^ 

The  fundamental  fact,  then,  was  that  of  sin. 
But  what  was  sin  ?  On  this  point  St.  Paul 
was  naturally  not  so  explicit,  for  the  fact  that 
he  was  dealing  with  was  one  recognized  by  his 
contemporaries,  and  was  a  fundamental  part 
of  his  thought.  The  conception  of  sin  we  owe 
to  the  Jew,  and  it  meant  this :  Evil  looked  at 
as  an  act  of  rebellion  against  God.  Just  as 
*'  righteousness  "  meant  morality  looked  at  as 
fulfilling  God's  will,  as  uprightness  in  the  sight 
of  God,  so  sin  was  immorality  and  wrong  looked 
at  in  relation  to  God.  The  one  represents  the 
state  of  a  man  who  fulfils  God's  will,  the  other 
means  rebellion  and  alienation. 

St.  Paul  assumes  that  we  know  what  sin 
is ;  but  he  is  not  without  his  theory  as  to  its 
origin,  and  he  looks  at  it  from  two  sides.  He 
has  an  historical  theory  of  its  origin,  and  a 
psychological  theory  of  its  working.    ''  Through 

1  Rom.  vii.  11-25. 


122  ZEAL  FOR  GOD  AND  THE  LAW 

one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world."  In  Adam 
all  had  sinned.  "  By  the  trespass  of  the  one  the 
many  died.  .  .  .  Through  one  trespass  the 
judgement  came  unto  all  men  to  condemnation. 
Through  the  one  man's  disobedience  the  many 
were  made  sinners."^  Man  had  fallen  from  the 
right  way,  and  although  there  was  no  guilt  where 
there  was  no  law,  yet  all  men  were  in  a  state 
of  disobedience  to  God's  will  and  alienation 
from  Him. 

There  are  certain  points  to  be  noticed  about 
this  theory  of  the  origin  of  sin.  In  the  first 
place  it  is  introduced  quite  incidentally  so  as 
to  enable  St.  Paul  to  bring  out  more  fully  the 
work  of  Christ.  The  argument  of  the  whole 
Epistle  is  quite  independent  of  it,  for  St.  Paul's 
conception  of  the  need  of  redemption  and  the 
process  of  salvation  is  dependent  not  on  any 
theory  of  the  origin  of  sin,  but  on  the  fact — 
the  undoubted  fact — of  the  sinfulness  of  the 
world  and  of  human  nature.  In  the  second  place, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  is  one  of  the 
points  which  St.  Paul  owes  more  particularly 
to  the  current  philosophy  and  phraseology  of 
the  schools  of  the  day.  Excellent  illustra- 
tion is  given  by  a  late  Jewish  writing — the 
Apocalypse  of  Ezra. 

1  Rom.  V.  12-19. 


THE  SIN  OF  ADAM  123 

"  O  Lord,  my  Lord,  was  it  not  thou  who 
in  the  beginning,  when  thou  didst  form  the 
earth . . .  didst  speak  and  commandedst  the  dust, 
so  that  it  gave  thee  Adam,  a  Hfeless  body  ?  .  .  . 
And  Thou  leddest  him  into  Paradise,  which 
thy  right  hand  did  plant  before  ever  the  earth 
came  forward,  and  to  him  thou  commandest 
one  only  observance  of  thine,  but  he  trans- 
gressed it.  Forthwith  thou  appointedst  death 
for  him  and  for  his  generations  ;  and  from  him 
were  born  nations  and  tribes,  peoples  and  clans 
innumerable.  And  every  nation  walked  after 
their  own  will,  and  behaved  wickedly  before 
thee  and  were  ungodly." ^  And  again  :  "For 
the  first  Adam,  clothing  himself  with  the  evil 
heart,  transgressed  and  was  overcome  ;  and 
likewise  also  all  who  were  born  of  him.  .  .  ."^ 
"  O  thou  Adam,  what  hast  thou  done  ?  For 
though  it  was  thou  that  sinned,  the  fall  was 
not  thine  alone,  but  ours  also  who  are  thy 
descendants."^ 

It  would  be  beside  the  purpose  of  this  work 
to  discuss  further  the  theological  conception 
of  original  sin  ;  it  is  sufficient  now  to  emphasize 

1  4  Ezra  iii.  4-8.  I  have  ventured  throughout  to  use 
the  excellent  translations  of  Mr.  Box.  ''The  Ezra  Apoc- 
alypse/' by  G.  H.  Box,  M.A.,  pp.  9,  10. 

2  IbicL,  iii.  21  ;  Box,  p.  15. 

3  Ibid.,  \ii.  118;  Box,  p.  l6l. 


124  ZEAL  FOR  GOD  AND  THE  LAW 

that  it  is  the  fact  of  sin  and  not  its  origin  that 
is  the  basis  of  the  Pauhne  doctrine  of  redemp- 
tion, and  that  there  is  no  part  of  St.  Paul's 
thought  and  speculations  which  can  be  more 
definitely  traced  to  current  Jewish  specula- 
tion. 

And  then  there  is  the  psychological  account 
of  sin.  It  is  not  necessary  for  our  purpose  here 
to  study  with  any  fulness  St.  Paul's  psychology. 
It  is  not  essential  to  his  theology ;  it  is  among 
the  more  transient  parts  of  his  teaching.  But 
something  must  be  said  about  his  psychological 
explanation  of  sin.  St.  Paul  was  a  Jew  and 
not  a  Greek,  nor  was  he  in  any  of  his  funda- 
mental ideas  influenced  by  Greek  thought. 
As  a  Jew  he  looked  on  human  nature  as  in  its 
essence  one.  There  was  no  dualism.  Man  was 
not  compounded  of  two  discordant  elements, 
spirit  and  matter — the  one  good,  the  other  evil. 
He  had,  of  course,  his  different  parts  :  his  body, 
his  soul,  his  mind,  his  spirit ;  but  they  were 
different  elements  in  the  one  man.  With  all 
he  might  do  good,  in  all  he  might  sin,  in  all 
he  could  be  redeemed.  But  his  hiniian  nature, 
his  flesh,  was  weak ;  and  in  this  weak  human 
nature,  through  the  seed  sown  by  Adam's  sin, 
*'  Sin,"  looked  on  as  a  great  personified  force  or 
power,  had  obtained  a  hold ;  it  had  permeated 


SIN  AND  THE  FLESH  125 

his  whole  nature,  and  created  in  him  a  principle 
of  evil,  which  in  most  men  was  at  war  with 
the  higher  principles  that  came  to  them 
through  their  spirit ;  but  might  ultimately 
overpower  the  whole  man,  so  that  the  spirit 
itself  would  become  evil.  The  dualism  of  St. 
Paul  is  not  a  Platonic  dualism — a  fundamental 
dualism  of  a  spirit  which  has  to  be  freed  from 
its  material  environment,  but  is  something 
transient  and  temporary :  a  man  becomes  the 
battle-ground  of  two  principles,  sin  and  right- 
eousness, the  one  working  through  his  flesh, 
the  other  through  his  spirit,  until  either  one 
or  other  is  triumphant,  and  he  becomes  the 
servant  of  sin  or  the  servant  of  righteousness. 

There  is  one  more  question  to  ask,  and  that 
is.  What  was  St.  Paul's  attitude  towards  what, 
in  modern  parlance,  we  call  the  personality  of 
the  devil  ?  His  point  of  view  is  interesting 
and  in  a  sense  ambiguous.  It  is  quite  clear 
that  he  accepts  all  the  normal  Jewish  teaching 
as  to  the  personality  of  evil  spirits.  "  We 
wrestle  not  against  flesh  and  blood,  but  against 
principalities  and  powers  and  spiritual  wicked- 
ness in  high  places."  But  although  this  was 
his  natural  and  inherited  belief,  it  does  not 
affect  his  philosophy  of  the  subject.  Through- 
out the  whole  of  the  exposition  in  Romans, 


126  ZEAL  FOR  GOD  AND  THE  LAW 

he  speaks  not  of  a  personal  source  of  evil,  but 
a  great  principle  of  sin,  and  the  whole  work 
can  be  read  and  grasped  by  anyone  quite 
independently  of  those  inherited  beliefs  of  the 
Apostle,  which  sometimes  seem  hardly  more 
real  to  him  than  to  us. 


II 

Sin  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses ;  with 
Moses  came  the  law.  The  law  reigned  from 
Moses  to  Christ.  What,  then,  was  the  law  ? 
And  what  were  its  functions  ? 

It  is  one  of  the  recognized  difficulties  of  the 
interpretation  of  the  language  of  St.  Paul  that 
he  uses  words  in  different  senses,  often  in  the 
same  passage,  often  in  senses  closely  allied  to 
one  another,  and  that  one  signification  passes 
into  another.  It  is,  I  think,  clear  that  this  is 
the  case  with  the  word  "law."  Law  is  to 
St.  Paul  a  great  principle  or  stage  in  human 
development.  He  clearly  recognizes  that 
Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews  knew  law.  It  was 
represented  by  the  law  of  conscience ;  it  was 
witnessed  to  by  the  moral  judgements  which 
men  have  in  all  ages  passed  on  one  another  ; 
it  is  embodied  in  codes  and  ordinances  and 
bodies   of  law ;   it   distinguishes    for    us   the 


THE  LAW  127 

difference  between  right  and  wrong.  But  this 
principle  of  law  was  represented  most  clearly 
by  the  Jewish  law,  called  emphatically  "the 
Law,"  and  with  that,  of  course,  St.  Paul  is 
mainly  concerned.  Only  it  is  well  to  re- 
member that  the  same  principle  of  law  had 
prevailed  in  the  Gentile  world,  fulfilling  for 
other  nations  the  same  functions  as  the  law 
of  Moses  for  the  Jews. 

What,  then,  was  the  law  ?  It  had  fulfilled 
three  great  functions.  It  had  taught  men 
their  knowledge  of  right  and  wrong ;  it  had 
convinced  them  of  their  weakness  and  power- 
lessness  to  fulfil  the  commandment ;  it  had 
thus  been,  as  it  were,  a  schoolmaster  to  lead 
men  to  Christ,  but  it  had  always  failed  to  bring 
justification,  to  enable  men  to  present  them- 
selves as  righteous  in  the  sight  of  God.  "  I 
had  not  known  lust,  except  the  law  had  said, 
Thou  shalt  not  lust."^  While  the  law  was  in 
itself  holy,  and  just,  and  good,  its  effect  had 
been  not  to  produce  righteousness,  but  rather 
to  stir  up  to  rebellion  the  principle  of  sin  in 
mankind,  and  thus  even  to  intensify  human 
wickedness.  "  When  the  commandment  came, 
sin  revived,  and  I  died ;  and  the  command- 
ment, which  was  unto  life,  this  I  found  to  be 

^  Rom.  vii.  7. 


128  ZEAL  FOR  GOD  AND  THE  LAW 

unto  death ;  for  sin,  finding  occasion  through 
the  commandment,  beguiled  me,  and  through 
it  slew  me."i  The  whole  result  of  this  process 
was  to  reveal  what  sin  was,  and  to  reveal  also 
the  weakness  of  our  own  human  nature,  and 
thus  prepare  the  way  for  something  higher. 
St.  Paul's  outlook  on  the  world  and  his  own 
spiritual  experience  alike  convinced  him  of  one 
thing  as  certain — that  law  could  not  justify. 
Law  only  shewed  the  need  of  the  Gospel. 


Ill 

How,  then,  can  a  man  be  justified  ?  On 
what  conditions  will  he  be  held  to  be  righteous 
in  the  sight  of  God  ?  St.  Paul's  answer  is : 
By  faith.  The  Gospel  "  is  the  power  of  God 
unto  salvation  to  everyone  that  believeth  .  .  . 
for  therein  is  revealed  a  righteousness  of  God 
by  faith  unto  faith :  as  it  is  written.  The 
righteous  shall  live  by  faith."^  "But  now 
apart  from  law  a  righteousness  of  God  hath 
been  manifested,  being  witnessed  by  the  law 
and  the  prophets :  even  a  righteousness  of 
God  through  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  unto  all 
them  that  believe."^     *' To  him  that  worketh 

1  Rom.  vii.  9,  10.  ^  Ro^i.  i.  l6,  17. 

3  Rom.  iii.  21,  22. 


FAITH  129 

not,  but  belie veth  on  him  that  justifieth  the 
ungodly,  his  faith  is  reckoned  for  righteous- 
ness."^ 

To  understand  St.  Paul's  meaning,  let  us 
examine  first  his  own  experience.  He  himself 
had  been,  as  he  says,  seized  by  Christ.  He 
had  believed  in  Him,  accepted  Him  as  the 
Messiah,  believed  on  Him  as  forgiving  the  sins 
of  those  who  called  upon  Him,  as  taking  to 
Himself  all  who  with  complete  self-surrender 
yielded  themselves  to  Him ;  and  he  had  felt 
a  complete  change  in  his  whole  being.  He 
knew  that  the  whole  relation  between  himself 
and  God  had  been  transformed  ;  there  was 
some  power  in  him  which  had  overcome  all 
his  sinful  tendencies.  He  had  become  a  new 
creature. 

Here  was  the  fundamental  fact.  And  it 
was  based,  first  of  all,  on  St.  Paul's  concep- 
tion of  faith.  Faith  starts  from  the  two  ideas 
of  intellectual  assent  and  trust,  and  both 
elements  went  to  the  building  up  of  the 
Biblical  use  of  the  word.  The  writer  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  emphasizes  the  intel- 
lectual element  most  clearly  when  he  tells  us 
that  **  faith  is  the  assurance  of  things  hoped  for, 
the  proving  of  things  not  seen. "  ^    Here,  clearly, 

1  Rom.  iv.  5.  2  Heb.  xi.  1. 

17 


130  ZEAL  FOR  GOD  AND  THE  LAW 

it  is  the  intellectual  assent  to  that  for  which 
there  is  not  the  evidence  of  the  senses.  Faith 
as  trust  was  displayed  by  Abraham  when  he 
left  his  home  and  country  and  went  forth  into 
a  strange  land,  or  when  he  had  such  confidence 
in  God  that  he  would  not  withhold  his  son. 
The  faith  of  the  Christian  started  with  the 
intellectual  assent  to  the  belief  that  Jesus  was 
the  Messiah.  He  shewed  the  reality  of  his 
faith  by  giving  himself  up  to  Him.  He  was 
baptized.  He  became  His  loyal  servant.  And 
this  meant  an  experience  which  increased  his 
faith,  "from  faith  to  faith."  He  learnt  what 
Christ  had  done  for  him ;  he  learnt  the  love 
of  God  which  had  been  exhibited  in  the  death 
of  His  Son,  and  there  arose  in  him  the  response 
of  enthusiastic  and  loyal  service. 

This  is  what  faith  meant,  and  it  was  counted 
to  a  man  for  righteousness.  Now,  the  first 
thing  to  notice  is  that  this  process  of  justifica- 
tion was  to  St.  Paul  the  initial  fact  of  the 
Christian's  life.  **  Having  been  justified  by  faith, 
let  us  have  peace  with  God."  ^  ''  Having  been 
justified  now  by  his  blood,  we  shall  be  saved 
from  the  wrath.  "^  Quite  clearly  there  are  two 
stages — "justification"  and  "salvation."  The 
one  comes  at  the  beginning  of  the  Christian 

1  Rom.  V.  1.  -  Rom.  v.  9. 


SALVATION  131 

life,  the  other  is  its  final  consummation.  No 
doubt  (as  St.  Paul  always  maintains)  the  one 
is  a  guarantee  of  the  other,  but  that  does  not 
mean  that  it  works  automatically.  "Work 
out  your  own  salvation  with  fear  and  trem- 
bhng."^  No  doubt  all  "justified"  Christians 
might  be  spoken  of  proleptically  as  "  the  saved," 
for  they  were  in  the  path  of  salvation.  But 
the  two  ideas  were  really  separate.  The  result 
of  faith  is  to  put  a  man  into  such  a  right  rela- 
tion with  God  that  henceforth  he  will  live  as 
God  wills. 

A  phrase  often  used  in  relation  to  St.  Paul's 
thought  is  that  of  "  imputed  "  righteousness, 
and  it  is  further  suggested  that  the  righteous- 
ness imputed  to  us  is  that  of  Christ.  St.  Paul 
has  no  such  conception.  Such  an  interpreta- 
tion misrepresents  St.  Paul's  point  of  view. 
What  he  believed  was  that  by  the  death  of 
Christ  such  a  change  had  been  created  in  the 
relation  of  God  and  man  that  henceforth  it 
would  not  be  the  correct  fulfilment  of  a  legal 
code  that  would  enable  a  man  to  live  uprightly 
in  the  sight  of  God,  but  the  loyal  adhesion  of 
faith.  In  other  words,  that  faith  would  be 
reckoned  as  righteousness,  and  this  had  been 
brought  about  by  the   abolition  of  the  Old 

1  Phil.  ii.  12. 


132  ZEAL  FOR  GOD  AND  THE  LAW 

Covenant  in  the  death  of  Christ,  and  the  free 
forgiveness  thus  won  for  all  who  believed  in 
Christ  through  His  blood.  '*  Blessed  are  they 
w^hose  iniquities  are  forgiven,  and  whose  sins 
are  covered.  Blessed  is  the  man  to  whom  the 
Lord  will  not  reckon  sin."^ 

What  had  happened,  then,  was  this — that 
a  new  covenant  had  been  made  between  God 
and  man,  that  the  old  hard  covenant  had  been 
done  away,  and  that  different  conditions  for 
salvation  had  been  created.  But  this  was  not 
all.  The  method  by  which  the  old  covenant 
had  been  put  an  end  to  had  been  such  as  to 
reveal  to  man  the  love  of  God  through  Christ. 
This  revelation  had  been  of  such  a  character 
as  to  rouse  in  us  responsive  feelings  of  faith 
^  and  love,  so  that  for  all  those  who  had  accepted 
Christ  a  complete  transformation  of  human 
nature  became  possible.  This,  as  we  shall  see, 
St.  Paul  works  out  when  he  considers  the  life 
of  the  redeemed,  for  we  have  not  nearly  ex- 
hausted all  the  elements  of  his  thought.  Faith 
and  Baptism  meant  a  union  with  Christ,  the 
gift  of  the  Spirit,  the  life  of  the  redeemed. 
And  this  new  covenant,  this  establishment  of 
a  new  relation  between  God  and  man,  had 
made  possible  the  incoming  of  the  Gentiles. 

1  Rom.  iv,  1,  8.     (Ps,  xxxii.  1,  2.) 


THE  GENTILES  133 

"  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of 
the  law  .  .  .  that  the  blessing  of  Abraham 
might  come  on  the  Gentiles  in  Christ  Jesus." ^ 
So  long  as  the  hope  of  salvation  was  based 
on  the  old  covenant  relations  of  obedience 
to  the  Jewish  law — a  law  given  only  to 
the  Jewish  race — they  were  ''separate  from 
Christ,  alienated  from  the  commonwealth  of 
Israel,  strangers  from  the  covenants  of  the 
promise,  having  no  hope,  and  without  God  in 
the  world. "^  But  these  conditions  were  done 
away.  A  new  covenant  based  on  the  ideas  of 
faith  and  forgiveness  had  been  inaugurated  by 
the  blood  of  Christ,  and  the  same  conditions 
applied  henceforth  to  the  whole  human  race. 

IV 

Such,  quite  shortly,  was  the  special  feature  of 
the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  as  preached  by  St. 
Paul,  and  we  have  now  to  consider  the  relation 
of  this  teaching  to  that  of  the  Primitive 
Church,  to  our  Lord,  and  its  influence  on  the 
subsequent  development  of  Christian  doctrine. 

St.  Paul  has  given  us  an  account,  from  his 
own  point  of  view,  in  Galatians  of  his  relation 
to  the  older  Apostles.  From  that  it  is  clear 
that  they  were  agreed  on  fundamental  points. 

1  Gal.  iii.  13,  14.  ^  ^pjj.  ii.  12. 

18 


134  ZEAL  FOR  GOD  AND  THE  LAW 

They  had  given  him  the  right  hand  of  fellow- 
ship ;  they  were  agreed  on  the  extension  of  the 
Gospel  to  the  Gentiles ;  that  Gentiles  should 
not  be  compelled  to  keep  the  law  ;  some  of 
them — St.  Peter  amongst  others — had  them- 
selves been  willing  among  Gentile  Christians 
to  relax  their  Jewish  habits.  They  had  not, 
however,  always  the  complete  courage  of  their 
opinions  ;  they  were  not  always  consistent ; 
many  of  their  followers  were  not  prepared  to 
give  up  old  customs.  There  was  a  good  deal 
in  Gentile  Christianity  which  shocked  the 
upright  Jew.  And  a  Judaizing  party  arose. 
Above  all,  the  earlier  generation  of  Christians 
did  not  realize  the  point  at  issue ;  they  did 
not  understand  the  fundamental  change  in 
principle  as  St.  Paul  had  realized  it. 

Let  us  look  for  a  moment  at  the  earliest 
disciples.  They  were  Jews,  brought  up  to 
obey  the  law,  not,  indeed,  as  a  Pharisee  would, 
but  as  ordinary  Jews.  They  had  learnt  from 
the  teaching  of  Jesus  a  different  view  of  the 
law,  and  a  new  theory  of  life,  but  this  did  not 
suggest  that  they  should  give  up  the  law.  They 
accepted  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  ;  they  had  re- 
ceived the  gift  of  the  Spirit ;  their  life  had  been 
transformed  ;  they  had  been  carried  on  by  the 
advancing  tide  of  a  movement,  which  they  had 


ST.  PAUL'S  EXPERIENCE       135 

hardly  grasped ;  and  they  had  not  reahzed  the 
change  which  had  taken  place.  They  preached 
faith  and  repentance.  They  went  on  living  as 
they  had  done,  only  they  were  better  Jews. 

St.  Paul,  on  the  other  hand,  had  had  a 
deeper  experience  than  theirs.  He  had  been 
a  Pharisee.  That  is  to  say,  he  had  consciously 
adopted  a  religious  system.  It  is  probable  that 
the  question,  How  can  a  man  be  justified  ? 
had  already  been  discussed  in  the  schools  of  the 
Rabbis.  At  any  rate,  a  deliberate  rule  of  life 
had  been  laid  down.  By  it  St.  Paul  attempted 
to  gain  peace  and  justification.  He  had  failed. 
He  was  conscious  of  his  failure.  He  had 
adopted  a  new  creed.  He  realized  the  differ- 
ence. He  saw  clearly  where  the  whole  point 
of  the  new  message  lay,  and  he  defined.  On 
the  one  side  "works,"  the  performance  of  a 
hard  legal  code  ;  on  the  other  side  "  faith," 
loyalty,  a  change  of  heart,  a  new  life.  He 
interpreted  the  message  in  a  different  way 
from  others.  He  was  able  to  do  this  because 
he  had  been  a  Pharisee,  and  because  his 
religious  experience  had  been  so  remarkable. 

This  gospel,  then,  which  St.  Paul  preached 
was  not  a  new  one.  It  was  only  the  logical 
and  theological  statement  of  what  Christians 
had  known  fi'om  the  beginning.     Our  Lord 


136  ZEAL  FOR  GOD  AND  THE  LAW 

had  proclaimed  the  good  news  of  the  forgive- 
ness of  sins.  He  had  bidden  men  come  to  Him, 
and  had  commended  their  faith.  He  had  again 
and  again  turned  them  from  obedience  to  the 
letter  of  the  law  to  a  realization  of  its  spirit, 
from  the  literal  obedience  to  the  comprehension 
of  a  principle.  He  had  spoken  of  a  yoke  which 
was  easy,  yet  of  a  righteousness  which  must 
exceed  that  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees.  This 
was  the  Christian  tradition  of  Christ's  preach- 
ing. The  Early  Church  had  carried  on  the 
tradition.  They  preached  faith  in  Jesus  the 
Messiah,  forgiveness  of  sins,  baptism  into 
Christ's  name.  They  received  at  their  profes- 
sion of  faith  and  incorporation  by  baptism  into 
the  society  the  gift  of  the  Spirit,  and  they  knew 
how  in  the  name  of  Christ  they  had  healed  the 
sick  and  cast  out  devils.  Clearly  this  implied 
all  that  St.  Paul  taught,  but  clearly  also  the 
earliest  Christian  teachers  did  not  realize  all 
that  it  implied.  It  was  St.  Paul  who  realized 
that  here  was  a  new  principle  of  life  and  religion ; 
it  was  he  who  carried  it  to  its  clear  and  logical 
conclusion,  who  saw  its  consequences  in  freedom 
from  the  law,  and  why  it  meant  that  the  gift 
of  the  Messianic  salvation  should  be  for  Gentiles 
as  well  as  for  Jews.  And  he  expressed  his  teach- 
ing in  the  language  and  forms  of  the  current 


ST.  PAUL  AND  CHRIST         137 

theology.  He  shewed,  as  a  Rabbi  might,  how 
it  was  taught  by  the  Old  Testament,  and 
expressed  himself  in  the  recognized  categories. 
The  difference  between  his  teaching  of  justifi- 
cation and  that  of  his  contemporaries  was  that 
he  transformed  a  religious  life  into  a  theology. 

But  although  he  interpreted  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  more  adequately  than  the  Church  before 
had  done,  he  had  not  grasped  the  whole  of  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  in  its  fulness.  Where  con- 
troversy leads  to  a  clear  issue  being  raised  in 
theology,  it  is  sure  to  result  in  the  loss  of  com- 
prehensiveness. St.  Paul  was  inevitably  one- 
sided and  controversial.  Nothing  that  he  says 
ever  succeeds  in  bringing  out  all  sides  of  the 
truth  quite  in  the  way  that  the  one  phrase  of 
our  Lord  does  :  "  I  am  not  come  to  destroy 
but  to  fulfil."  There  was  no  one-sidedness 
about  our  Lord's  teaching  which  might  lead 
to  Antinomianism,  as  actually  happened  in  the 
case  of  the  teaching  of  St.  Paul. 

The  controversy  with  Judaism  had  raised 
a  clear  issue,  and  the  issue  led  to  the  clear 
and  formal  definition  of  the  great  principle  of 
justification  by  faith.  But  the  next  genera- 
tion forgot  the  controversy,  did  not  need  the 
teaching,  and  obscured  the  issue.  Clement 
of  Rome  clearly  did  not   understand.      For 


138  ZEAL  FOR  GOD  AND  THE  LAW 

him  the  common -sense  point  of  view  was 
adequate.  "  Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
and  Hve  a  godly  life."  He  reconciles  St.  Paul 
and  St.  James,  as  most  of  us  do,  by  saying 
that  we  are  justified  by  faith  and  works.  That 
is  generally  an  adequate  and  sufficient  formula. 
Some  of  the  Gnostics  perverted  St.  Paul's 
teaching  and  made  it  Antinomian ;  but  for  the 
most  part  it  was  not  understood  because  it 
was  not  required. 

Twice,  however,  in  the  history  of  Christianity 
has  Paulinism  been  of  paramount  importance. 
To  St.  Augustine  the  issue  was  somewhat 
diffisrent  from  what  it  had  been  to  St.  Paul. 
The  fundamental  point  of  his  religious  life  was 
the  inadequacy  of  human  merit  to  attain  salva- 
tion. He  felt  that  he  himself  owed  nothing  to 
his  own  will,  which  was  inherently  corrupt,  but 
that  he  had  been  snatched  to  salvation  by  the 
Divine  grace;  and  on  the  language  of  St.  Paul, 
as  interpreted  by  St.  Augustine,  was  built  up 
the  great  mediaeval  system  of  grace. 

In  the  second  great  period  when  his  particular 
teaching  was  paramount  the  conditions  closely 
resembled  those  of  his  own  day.  The  Refor- 
mation controversy  was  really  the  old  con- 
troversy of  faith  and  works.  Practically  — 
however  much  it  might  be  concealed  in  theory 


THE  REFORMATION  139 

— the  mediaeval  system  taught  salvation  by 
works.  Equally  clearly  Luther  asserted,  as 
St.  Paul  had  done,  justification  by  faith — 
i.e.,  that  the  primary  condition  of  justification 
and  salvation  was  not  the  fulfilment  of  a  code, 
moral  or  ecclesiastical,  but  the  turning  of  the 
heart  to  God.  Luther's  own  experience  had 
been  like  St.  Paul's.  That  point  he  seized,  that 
he  preached,  and  on  that  he  built  up  the 
Lutheran  theology.  But  the  Reformation 
never  grasped  St.  Paul's  teaching  in  its  fulness. 
It  made  what  was  really  a  subordinate  feature 
the  centre  of  the  Gospel ;  its  language  was 
exaggerated ;  it  lost  its  balance,  and  hence  it 
became  formal  and  unreal.  But  its  strength  lay 
in  the  fact  that  it  realized  what  the  system  to 
which  it  was  opposed  had  lost — that  no  works, 
no  sacraments,  no  ceremonies,  no  morality,  avail 
anything  to  him  whose  heart  is  not  transformed 
in  Christ. 


VII 

THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE 

The  life  in  Christ — The  life  in  the  Spirit — Christian 
ethics — Their  source. 

There  is  always  a  danger  that  any  system  of 
"  Justification  by  Faitli,"  to  use  a  modern 
name,  will  have  an  Antinomian  tendency  ;  and 
this  was  particularly  likely  to  be  the  case  in 
some  of  the  Gentile  communities  which  St. 
Paul  had  founded.  While  Judaism  was  dis- 
tinguished for  its  strong  ethical  tradition,  this 
was  not  the  characteristic  of  either  the  Hellenic 
or  Oriental  religions.  In  many  places  a  life 
which  a  Jew  would  denounce  as  immoral  was 
definitely  consecrated  to  the  service  of  religion. 
The  Churches  founded  in  the  commercial 
centres  of  Corinth  and  Ephesus  out  of  con- 
verts of  mixed  races  and  varied  cults,  with  all 
their  old  ethnic  traditions  of  a  moral  life  broken 
down  by  the  disintegrating  influence  of  cos- 
mopolitanism, would  find  St.  Paul's  doctrine 
of  faith  very  attractive.     They  could  look  upon 

140 


ANTINOMIANISM  141 

the  Christian  sacraments  as  capable  of  working 
by  magic.  "  The  greater  the  sin,  the  greater 
the  grace."  "  Shall  we  continue  in  sin  that 
grace  may  abound?"  Such  a  point  of  view 
was  entirely  natural. 

Let  us  remark  in  passing  that  the  existence 
of  such  a  perversion  of  Christian  teaching  is 
conclusive  evidence  that  it  was  "justification 
by  faith  "  that  St.  Paul  taught,  in  the  sense 
that  a  man  was  held  righteous  by  reason  of 
his  faith.  If  St.  Paul  had  taught  that  he  was 
made  righteous  by  faith,  no  one  could  have 
suggested  that  works  were  indifferent.  St. 
Paul  had  been  compelled  by  controversial 
exigencies  to  emphasize  "  faith  "  as  something 
apart  from  "works,"  and  to  denounce  any 
reliance  on  works.  It  was  thus  natural  enough 
that  among  people  already  imbued  with  a 
sense  of  indifference  to  morality,  his  teaching 
should  be  capable  of  an  Antinomian  perver- 
sion. 

To  St.  Paul  the  whole  conception  was  im- 
possible, untenable.  The  Jewish  tradition  of 
a  God  exalted  in  righteousness  was  deeply 
ingrained  in  his  heart.  The  Old  Testament, 
Pharisaism,  eschatology,  all  taught  it.  What- 
ever the  faults  of  the  Pharisee  and  the  limita- 
tions of  his  creed,  he  always  taught  a  zeal  for 


142         THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE 

righteousness.  It  is  one  of  the  failures  of  the 
modern  eschatological  school  that  they  have 
associated  their  teaching  with  the  idea  of  an 
"  interim-ethik."  Eschatology  had  arisen  out 
of  the  strong,  if  narrow,  ethical  sense  of  the 
Jews  and  their  conception  of  the  rest  of  the 
world  as  "sinners."  To  St.  Paul  the  thought 
that  Christianity  was  anything  else  but  a  life 
of  ideal  goodness  and  purity  was  unthinkable. 
He  believed  that  when  the  Messiah  came  He 
would  judge  all  men,  Christian  or  not  Christian, 
in  accordance  with  their  lives.  The  Lord  was 
at  hand.  All  chambering  and  wantonness 
must  be  put  away. 

But  what  was  the  logical  basis  for  such  a 
belief?  How  escape  the  clear  reasoning  of 
anyone  who  argued  that  if  works  were  neces- 
sary for  salvation,  then  justification  was  by 
works  and  not  by  faith,  and  the  whole  system 
of  the  law  came  back.  St.  Paul's  answer  was 
that  justification  had  come  on  certain  condi- 
tions which  were  incompatible  either  with  legal 
conditions  of  righteousness  or  with  any  im- 
morality. How  was  a  man  justified  ?  He 
was  accepted  by  God  for  the  faith  which  he 
had  exhibited  by  being  baptized  in  the  name 
of  Jesus  the  Christ,  and  this  baptism  meant 
that  he  had  been  united  with  Christ  in  a  new 


THE  LIFE  IN  CHRIST  143 

life,  and  had  received  the  gift  of  the  Spirit. 
His  Ufe,  therefore,  must  be  one  in  accordance 
with  the  conditions  on  which  he  had  been 
accepted,  and  no  other  Hfe  was  possible  for 
him.  This  life  is  described  by  St.  Paul  under 
a  great  variety  of  metaphors,  but  substantially 
it  had  two  characteristics — the  life  in  Christ 
and  the  life  in  the  Spirit. 


I 

There  is  no  phrase  more  characteristic  of  St. 
Paul  than  that  of  "  in  Christ,"  or  ''  in  Christ 
Jesus."  In  occurs  in  all  the  groups  of  Epistles  ; 
the  only  two  writings  in  which  it  is  not  found 
being  2  Thessalonians  and  Titus.  Outside  St. 
Paul  it  occurs  in  1  Peter,  and  the  idea  is  con- 
stant both  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  and  the  First 
Epistle  of  St.  John.  It  occurs  also  in  the 
Apocalypse.  It  expresses  the  fundamental 
fact  of  St.  Paul's  life :  "  It  is  no  longer  I,  but 
Christ,  that  liveth  in  me."  The  whole  of  his 
life,  his  joys  and  sorrows,  his  hopes  and  fears, 
are  all  in  Christ.  All  he  has  comes  through 
Christ,  and  all  his  aims  are  set  on  Christ.  And 
what  is  true  of  him  is  true  of  all  Christians, 
both  in  their  individual  and  corporate  capacity. 
The  Churches  of  God  are  in  Christ. 


144         THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE 

The  significance  of  this  union  with  Christ 
and  all  that  it  implies  is  worked  out  most  fully 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  ''  Do  you 
realize,"  says  St.  Paul,  "  how  all  you  who 
were  baptized  into  Christ  were  baptized  into 
His  death  ?  You  descended  into  the  waters  of 
baptism,  and  there,  as  Christ  died  and  went 
down  into  the  grave,  so  you  also  died  to  sin. 
As  He  rose  from  the  dead  through  the  glory 
of  the  Father,  so  you,  too,  have  risen,  and  lead 
a  new  life.  You  have  shared  in  His  death, 
you  will  share  in  His  resurrection.  Your  old 
man  is  crucified,  and  all  the  sin  in  it  destroyed. 
Sin,  therefore,  is  banished  from  your  life.  Christ 
died  to  sin.  You  also  died  with  Him,  and 
now  you  live  in  a  new  life."^  This  union  with 
Christ  transforms  the  whole  being.  Christ  is 
formed  in  us.^  We  have  crucified  the  flesh 
with  its  affections  and  lusts. ^  Through  the 
cross  of  Christ  the  world  is  crucified  to  me 
and  I  unto  the  world. ^  As  we  are  crucified 
with  Christ  we  also  share  His  sufferings.  St. 
Paul  can  feel  that  he  makes  up  what  is  wanting 
in  the  sufferings  of  Christ.^  What  Christ 
suffered  we  suffer,  and  what  we  suffer,  Christ 
suffers.     As  we  have  died  with  Christ,  so  we 

1  Rom.  vi.  1-11.         2  Qal.  iv.  19.         ^  Gal.  v.  24. 
4  Gal.  vi.  14.  ^  Col.  i.  24. 


ST.  PAUL  AND  CHRIST        145 

are  dead  to  all  the  beggarly  elements  of  the 
world,  to  the  old  law  of  ordinances  which  He 
has  destroyed/  As  we  have  risen  with  Him, 
so  we  must  rise  in  newness  of  life,  seek  those 
things  that  are  above,  where  our  life  is  hid 
with  Christ  in  God.^     We  are  a  new  creature- 

The  phrase  "  in  Christ "  is  one  which  par- 
ticularly belongs  to  St.  Paul,  but  the  thought 
is  one  which  permeates  all  the  discourses  of 
our  Lord  in  the  Gospel  of  St.  John.  Is  the  idea 
an  original  thought  of  St.  Paul,  derived  from  and 
built  up  out  of  his  religious  experience,  or  was 
it  derived  from  the  teaching  of  our  Lord? 
This  is  one  of  the  questions  which  depends  for 
its  answer  on  the  value  which  is  ultimately 
assigned  to  the  Fourth  Gospel  as  an  historical 
document.  Does  it  in  this  represent  a  de- 
veloped Paulinism,  or  was  the  common  source 
of  the  teaching  contained  in  both  writings 
the  words  of  our  Lord  interpreted  by  each  in 
his  own  fashion  ? 

At  any  rate,  this  teaching  of  union  with 
Christ  is  one  of  the  greatest  and  deepest  of 
St.  Paul's  thoughts  ;  it  represents,  perhaps, 
the  culminating  point  of  his  religious  experi- 
ence ;  it  unifies  all  his  theology.  Whatever 
difficulties  are  experienced  by  his  theory  of  the 

1  Col.  ii.  20.  2  Col.  iii.  1,  3. 

19 


146         THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE 

Atonement  are  clearly  largely  modified  if  we 
realize  that  we  are  mystically  one  with  Christ, 
and  that  we  thus  participate  in  all  that  He 
does.  If  there  is  a  danger  of  St.  Paul's  doctrine 
of  justification  becoming  hard  and  rigid,  it  ceases 
if  we  realize  that  the  faith  through  which  we 
are  justified  unites  us  with  Christ.  St.  Paul's 
Church,  as  we  shall  see,  was  not  merely  an 
organized  society,  but  a  part  of  Christ,  His 
body.  Sacraments  to  him  were  not  formal  or 
magical,  but  in  Baptism  we  are  incorporated 
with  Christ,  in  the  Lord's  Supper  we  live  in 
Him.  We  have  reached  a  point  in  St.  Paul's 
thought  where  his  religious  experience  takes 
him  beyond  what  can  be  expressed  or  defined 
in  language.  No  logical  expression  is  possible  ; 
there  is  no  analogy  in  ordinary  experience ;  we 
have  to  be  content  with  metaphors  ;  we  cannot 
work  out  what  we  mean  in  syllogisms  or  find 
a  place  for  it  in  systematic  theology  ;  but  this 
does  not  prevent  it  being  real.  St.  Paul  was 
describing  what  he  felt  to  be  true,  and  what 
he  experienced  "  has  doubtless  been  acted  upon 
in  many  a  simple  unspeculative  life,  in  which 
there  was  never  any  attempt  to  formulate  it 
exactly  in  words.  "-^ 

1  Sanday  and  Headlam,  "Romans,"  p.  l66. 


IN  THE  SPIRIT  147 

II 

Side  by  side  with  the  expression  "  in  Christ " 
there  is  tlie  parallel  conception  of  life  "  in  the 
Spirit."  This  life  ''  in  the  Spirit  "  was  one  of 
the  most  real  facts  of  Christian  experience. 
We  have  already  fully  analyzed  in  detail  the 
conception  of  the  Spirit ;  we  have  now  to  con- 
sider what  life  **  in  the  Spirit "  meant,  and  in 
particular  what  is  its  relation  to  life  in  Christ. 

The  same  initial  act  of  the  Christian  life 
which  had  meant  our  incorporation  into  Christ 
had  implied  the  gift  of  the  Spirit,  or  perhaps, 
more  correctly,  was  brought  about  through 
the  agency  of  the  Spirit,  for  the  two  ideas  seem 
to  have  co-existed :  "In  one  Spirit  were  we 
all  baptized  into  one  body";^  and  even  more 
definitely  the  work  of  the  Spirit  is  connected 
with  the  whole  process  of  salvation :  "  Ye 
were  washed,  ye  were  sanctified,  ye  were 
justified  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  in  the  Spirit  of  our  God." 2  The 
result  of  this  is  that  we  are  a  temple  of 
the  Spirit.  God  dwells  in  us  through  the 
Spirit  ;^  and  this  is  true  of  both  the  individual 
and  the  whole  Christian  society.  "  In  Christ 
Jesus  each  several  building,  fitly  framed  to- 

1  1  Cor.  xii.  13.         2  1  Cor.  vi.  11.         3  2  Cor.  iii.  16. 


148         THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE 

gether,  groweth  into  a  holy  temple  in  the 
Lord :  in  whom  ye  also  are  builded  together 
for  a  habitation  of  God  in  the  Spirit."^ 

The  result  of  this  indwelling  of  God's  Spirit 
is  a  transformation  of  our  nature.  Naturally 
we  are  weak,  our  human  nature  has  become 
infected  with  sin,  and  sin  has  become  a  tyrant 
in  our  bodies,  so  that  we  are  no  longer  free, 
but  slaves.  The  Spirit,  given  us  from  God, 
has  strengthened  our  own  spirit,  so  that  hence- 
forth it  has  the  upper  hand  ;  we  are  freed  from 
our  old  slavery  and  become  instead  servants 
of  Christ  —  a  new  slavery  which  is  freedom, 
because  it  means  the  right  and  harmonious 
development  of  our  being.  Sin  being  thus 
driven  out  of  us  by  the  Spirit,  we  become 
holy  and  pure,  and  all  the  works  of  the  flesh 
are  put  away  from  us,  all  that  is  weak  and 
impure  in  human  nature.  We  are  no  longer 
carnal  but  spiritual.  This  transformed  life  is 
shewn  in  a  loftier  morality,  in  spiritual  gifts, 
in  a  higher  religious  life,  and  in  St.  Paul  par- 
ticularly, as  in  others  also,  in  an  intensified 
power  of  preaching  the  Gospel. 

All  the  highest  moral  gifts  come  from,  or 
are  transformed  by,  the  Spirit.  "  The  fruit  of 
the  Spirit  is  love,  joy,  peace,  long-suffering, 

1  Eph.  ii.  21,  22. 


THE  POWER  OF  THE  SPIRIT     149 

kindness,  goodness,  faithfulness,  meekness, 
temperance."^  But  besides  these  normal  gifts 
of  character,  there  are  the  gifts  which  imply 
heightened  human  powers :  wisdom,  know- 
ledge, gifts  of  healings,  the  power  of  work- 
ing miracles,  prophecy,  discernings  of  spirits, 
tongues,  and  the  interpretation  of  tongues.  ^ 

All  these  gifts  are  summed  up  in  the  power 
of  the  Spirit,  through  which,  and  through 
which  alone,  St.  Paul  preaches  the  gospel.  His 
work  was  done  in  the  power  of  the  Spirit.  So 
much  is  this  the  case  that  to  despise  St.  Paul 
and  his  ministry,  and  to  look  down  on  those 
he  has  converted,  is  to  despise  God,  for  his 
work  is  the  work  of  God  through  the  Spirit, 
and  his  converts  have  been  endowed  with  the 
Spirit.^  His  preaching  was  powerful,  not 
because  of  any  eloquence  of  his  own,  but 
through  the  Spirit  of  God  which  worked  in 
him.^  As  the  Spirit  is  the  source  of  spiritual 
gifts  and  spiritual  power,  so  in  particular  is  it 
the  source  of  all  our  religious  life.  Through 
the  Spirit  we  have  life  and  peace ;  the  Spirit 
inspires  our  prayers ;  the  Spirit  fills  us  with 
holy  joy.  It  is  in  the  Spirit  that  we  call 
Jesus    Lord.      In    particular,   it    is    through 

1  Gal.  V.  22.  2  1  Cor.  xii.  8. 

3  1  Thess.  iv.  8.  *  1  Thess.  i.  5,  6 ;  1  Cor.  ii.  4. 

20 


150         THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE 

the  Spirit  that  reUgioiis  unity  comes,  and 
because  of  the  Spirit  we  must  be  one. 
This  is  definitely  deduced  from  the  unity 
of  the  Spirit.  In  one  Spirit  we  are  united  in 
one  body.^  We  have  therefore  always  to 
keep  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bond  of 
peace.2  l^^  one  Spirit  all  alike,  Jew  and 
Gentile,  have  access  to  the  Father  through 
Christ  Jesus. ^ 

So  the  new  covenant  can  be  described  as  a 
covenant  of  the  Spirit,  and  it  is  strongly  con- 
trasted with  the  old  covenant — the  covenant 
of  law.^  This  was  a  covenant  of  the  letter, 
a  code  of  written  rules  which  had  to  be  obeyed, 
which  stirred  up  all  the  evil  in  us,  and  might 
almost  be  described  as  a  covenant  of  death. 
The  new  covenant — the  covenant  of  the  Spirit 
— is  written  in  our  hearts.  Because  we  have 
God's  Spirit  in  our  hearts,  we  live  through  that 
Spirit  as  we  ought  to  live.  It  is  no  longer 
a  righteousness  concerning  which  we  can  glory ; 
it  is  a  righteousness  which  comes  because  God 
is  in  us.  Hence  come  the  great  antitheses 
which  run  through  the  writings  of  St.  Paul — 
Spirit  and  law,  Spirit  and  flesh. ^ 

But  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  means  something 

1  1  Cor.  xii.  13.  ^  Eph.  iv.  3,  4.         3  Eph.  ii.  18. 

4  2  Cor.  iii.  6;  Gal.  ii.  l6.  ^  Gal.  v.  l6. 


THE  PROMISE  OF  THE  SPIRIT    151 

more  than  this.  It  is  through  our  Hfe  in  the 
Spirit  that  our  Christian  hope  comes  to  us. 
Through  the  Spirit  comes  our  sonship  with 
God.  We  have  received  the  Spirit  of  adop- 
tion, and  we  can  call  on  God  as  our  Father  ; 
we  have  received  the  Spirit  of  the  Son, 
therefore  we  are  sons  and  heirs.  ^  And  as  the 
Spirit  is  the  source  of  our  sonship,  so  the 
Spirit  is  the  pledge  of  our  future  salva- 
tion.^ Because  of  all  that  we  have  received, 
because  of  the  complete  transformation  of 
our  life,  because  we  even  now  and  here  are 
so  completely  dominated  by  the  Spirit,  there- 
fore we  are  convinced  of  the  reality  of  the 
spiritual  life,  and  the  truth  of  the  promises 
of  God  ;  therefore  our  hope  of  the  continued 
existence  of  our  spiritual  life  is  certain,  and  we 
can  feel  confident — so  much  already  has  God 
done  for  us — that  we  will  receive  to  the  full 
His  promises.  "  In  whom,  having  also  believed, 
ye  were  sealed  with  the  Holy  Spirit  of  promise, 
which  is  an  earnest  of  our  inheritance  unto  the 
redemption  of  God's  own  possession,  unto  the 
praise  of  his  glory.  "^ 

These  two  conceptions — life  in  Christ,  life 
in  the  Spirit — sum  up  the  whole  of  our  religious 

1  Rom.  viii.  15  ;  Gal.  iv.  6,7.  ^2  Cor.  i.  22. 

»  Eph.  i.  13,  14;  cf.  iv.  30.    • 


152         THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE 

life,  and  they  represent  the  same  life  viewed 
from  different  standpoints.  It  is  through  the 
Spirit  that  God  works  in  us  ;  it  is  through  the 
Spirit  that  Christ  dwells  in  us  ;  it  is  through 
the  Spirit  that  we  are  united  with  Christ  that 
we  may  receive  the  fruits  of  our  redemption. 
But  the  new  life  that  we  live  comes  to  us 
from  God  through  Christ.  God  sent  forth  His 
Son  ;  Christ  died  for  us,  and  won  for  us  re- 
demption. The  Church  is  His  body.  Through 
Christ  we  have  received  the  gift  of  the  Spirit. 
It  is  hardly  necessary  or  possible  that  our 
analysis  should  go  further.  We  cannot  inter- 
pret more  than  St.  Paul  has  interpreted,  or 
experience  more  than  he  has  experienced. 

Only  we  can  see  the  contrast  between  the 
old  life  and  the  new.  Consider  the  old  life. 
The  law  stood  forth  with  its  hard,  almost 
impossible,  commands,  with  its  rigid  enact- 
ments, with  its  unattainable  ideals.  Incited 
by  it  we  strive  to  fulfil  its  demands.  We  feel 
proud  of  what  we  accomplish  ;  we  glory  in  our 
uprightness;  we  despise  the  "sinner."  But 
even  so  we  fail.  We  cannot  really  attain. 
We  struggle,  but  sin  in  us  is  powerful.  Then 
comes  the  work  of  tlie  Gospel.  We  turn  to 
Christ  in  faith,  and  He  receives  us.  We  are 
baptized  and  united  with  Him.    God's  Spirit  is 


CHRISTIAN  MORALITY        153 

poured  forth  in  our  hearts.  Henceforth  we 
live  the  new  hfe.  We  become  holy,  not 
because  of  any  merit  of  our  own,  but  because 
we  are  one  with  Christ,  and  God's  Spirit  dwells 
in  us.  Henceforth  we  live  a  new  and  higher 
life.  But  we  cannot  glory  in  our  uprightness, 
for  it  is  not  we  that  live  the  new  life,  but 
Christ  in  us. 

Ill 

The  Christian,  then,  is  one  who  is  united 
in  a  spiritual  union  with  Christ,  who  is  in- 
spired by  the  Spirit,  and  his  life  therefore 
exhibits  the  fruit  of  the  Spirit  in  a  Christian 
morality.  It  has  always  been  the  characteristic 
of  Christianity  to  dwell  on  the  actual  fruit  of 
its  teaching  in  a  moral  life.  "  By  their  fruits 
ye  shall  know  them,"  our  Lord  had  said ; 
and  St.  Paul  almost  invariably  concludes 
his  Epistles  with  the  exhortation  to  live  a 
Christian  life,  deduced  from  his  doctrinal  dis- 
cussions, and  commended  with  all  the  earnest- 
ness of  an  intensely  moral  nature.  It  is,  of 
course,  unreal  to  suggest  that  his  purpose  was 
only  ethical.  He  was  a  man  of  balanced  mind; 
the  intellectual,  the  moral,  the  religious  sides  of 
his  nature  influence  one  another.  But  always  at 
a  certain  stage  of  his  letters  we  expect  the  well- 
known  formula,  "  I  therefore,  the  prisoner  of 


154         THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE 

the  Lord,  beseech  you  to  walk  worthily  of  the 
calling  wherewith  ye  are  called."  "  I  beseech 
you  therefore,  brethren,  by  the  mercies  of  God, 
to  present  your  bodies  a  living  sacrifice,  holy, 
acceptable  to  God,  which  is  your  reasonable 
service."  And  St.  Paul  employs  a  wealth  of 
metaphor,  and  rises  to  a  great  height  of  rugged 
eloquence  in  describing,  in  illustrating,  and 
commending  this  moral  life. 

The  leading  characteristic  of  St.  Paul's 
morality  is  that  it  is  a  morality  of  principle, 
not  of  law.  It  is  the  working  out  m  practical 
life  of  the  great  spiritual  ideas  which  had 
taken  the  place  for  him  of  the  old  idea  of  law. 
INIore  than  once  he  sums  up  the  Christian  life 
by  the  three  virtues  of  Faith,  Hope,  and  Love. 
Faith  was  the  motive  principle  of  the  religious 
life  ;  Hope  meant  the  transformation  of  the 
earthly  life  which  results,  the  source  of  the 
Christian  joy  ;  Love  regulated  the  whole  of 
a  man's  dealing  with  his  fellow-men,  and,  as 
it  was  the  consummation  of  faith,  with  God 
also.  "  He  that  loveth  his  neighbour  hath 
fulfilled  the  law.  For  this.  Thou  shalt  not 
commit  adultery,  Thou  shalt  not  kill.  Thou 
shalt  not  steal.  Thou  shalt  not  covet,  and  if 
there  be  any  other  commandment,  it  is  summed 
up  in  this  word,  namely,  Thou  shalt  love  thy 


PURITY  155 

neighbour  as  thyself.  Love  worketh  no  ill  to 
his  neighbour :  Love  therefore  is  the  fulfilling 
of  law."  ^ 

The  last  sentence  shews  us  how  love  in  the 
moral  sphere  bears  the  same  relation  to  law 
that  faith  does  in  the  religious  sphere.  We 
need  not  illustrate.  It  is  enough  to  refer  to 
the  great  hymn  of  Love  in  the  First  Epistle 
to  the  Corinthians,  and  the  constant  echoes  of 
the  thought  througliout  the  Epistles. 

A  second  main  principle  with  St.  Paul 
was  Purity.  It  had  always  been  the  char- 
acteristic of  Judaism  that  it  had  made 
purity  of  life  an  integral  portion  of  religion. 
A  transformed  Judaism  now  came  into  direct 
contact  with  the  heathen  world,  which  was 
fundamentally  impure,  and  the  new  converts, 
attracted  by  the  religious  earnestness  of  St. 
Paul's  preaching,  accepting  Christianity  as 
"justification"  by  faith,  gaining  an  answer 
to  their  religious  needs  in  the  Sacraments, 
found  it  somewhat  difficult  to  give  up  their 
old  habits,  and  in  some  cases,  no  doubt,  were 
indifferent  about  doing  so.  St.  Paul  has  to 
emphasize  all  through  his  Epistles  the  need 
of  purity.  "  For  this  is  the  will  of  God, 
even  your  sanctification,  that  ye  abstain 
1  Rom.  xiii.  8-10. 


156         THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE 

from  fornication ;  that  each  one  of  you 
know  how  to  possess  himself  of  his  own 
vessel  in  sanctification  and  honour,  not  in 
the  passion  of  lust,  even  as  the  Gentiles 
which  know  not  God."^  "Flee  fornication. 
Every  sin  that  a  man  doeth  is  without  the 
body ;  but  he  that  committeth  fornication 
sinneth  against  his  own  body."^  "But  forni- 
cation, and  all  uncleanness,  or  covetousness, 
let  it  not  be  named  among  you  as  becometh 
saints.  .  .  .  For  this  ye  know  of  a  surety, 
that  no  fornicator,  nor  unclean  person,  nor 
covetous  man,  which  is  an  idolater,  hath  any 
inheritance  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ  and 
God."^  This  demand  is  in  all  cases  based  on 
the  highest  religious  motives.  The  Christian 
is  cleansed  and  sanctified  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
his  body  is  a  temple  of  God,  through  the 
Spirit;  he  is  united  with  Christ,  his  body  is 
a  member  of  Christ.  "  Shall  I  take  the 
members  of  Christ  and  make  them  members 
of  a  harlot?"^  We  are  baptized  in  Christ, 
we  have  eaten  spiritual  food  and  drink  in 
the  Lord's  Supper;  and  both  alike  demand 
abstinence  from  idolatry  or  lust. 

A  third  point  to  notice  is  the  sanctification 

1   1  Thess.  iv.  3.  ^   j  Cor.  vi.  18. 

3  Eph.  V.  S-5.  4  1  Cor.  vi.  15. 


SLAVERY  157 

of  all  the  relations  of  life  through  the  new 
conditions.  Most  characteristic  is  this  as  re- 
gards slavery.  St.  Paul  accepts  the  fact  of 
slavery  as  part  of  the  normal  conditions  of 
life  ;  but  the  relations  of  master  and  slave  are 
to  be  regulated  always  by  the  principles  he 
has  taught.  The  slaves  are  slaves  of  Christ, 
doing  the  will  of  God  from  the  heart.  The 
masters  are  to  remember  that  there  is  a 
Master  in  heaven  with  whom  is  no  respect 
of  persons.  So  Onesimus  is  sent  back  to 
Philemon  with  a  letter  exhorting  him  to 
receive  him  "no  longer  as  a  slave,  but  more 
than  a  slave,  a  brother  beloved."^  St.  Paul 
will  have  nothing  to  do  with  any  stirrings 
of  JNIessianic  war,  any  revolt  against  earthly 
rulers  ;  "  the  powers  that  be  are  ordained  of 
God."^  A  Christian  must  be  a  good  citizen, 
an  obedient  subject,  industrious  in  all  the 
relations  of  life.  The  nearness  of  the  end  is 
no  reason  for  neglecting  the  duties  of  this  life. 
In  regard  to  marriage  his  ideal  is  a  high  one. 
For  himself,  indeed,  he  prefers  the  celibate  life. 
It  is  his  gift.  He  believes  that  for  all  it  is 
best.  The  time  is  short.  This  present  life 
is  transitory.  The  fashion  of  this  life  passeth 
away,  so  that  henceforth,  they  that  have  wives 

1  Philem.  16.  2  Rom.  xiii.  1. 


158         THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE 

will  be  as  though  they  had  none.  The  unmarried 
is  careful  for  the  things  of  the  Lord,  how  he 
may  please  the  Lord :  the  married  is  careful 
for  the  things  of  the  world.  ^  But  the  married 
state  is  not  sinful.  The  married  are  one  flesh. 
There  is  a  direct  command  of  the  Lord  that 
husband  and  wife  are  not  to  leave  one  another 
— only  the  wife  or  husband  of  an  unbeliever 
may  separate  if  it  is  necessary.  All  the  rela- 
tions of  family — father  and  children,  husband 
and  wife,  master  and  servant — are  sacred. 
God  is  our  Father,  and  the  heavenly  relation- 
ship is  a  pattern  of  the  earthly.  Christ  loved 
the  Church  and  gave  Himself  for  it ;  husbands 
should  love  their  wives  as  Christ  loves  the 
Church ;  the  wife  should  be  as  the  Church, 
holy  and  without  blemish. 

IV 

It  is  in  relation  to  the  study  of  St.  Paul's 
ethics  that  we  see  more  clearly  than  in  any 
other  connexion  the  relation  of  his  teaching 
to  that  of  Christ.  And  this  is  natural.  The 
ethics  of  Christianity  came  direct  from  Christ ; 
the  doctrinal  teaching  \^'as  partly  drawn  from 
Him,  partly  the  interpretation  of  what  He  was. 

It  was  to  the  teaching  of  Christ  that  St. 

1   1  Cor.  vii.  8  et  scq. ;  28-33. 


LOVE  159 

Paul  owed  his  conception  of  love  as  the 
fundamental  principle  of  morality.  It  is,  of 
course,  true  that  the  thought  may  be  found 
in  the  Old  Testament,  and  that  Christ  with 
His  wonderful  insight  had  selected  just  that 
text  which  gave  the  note  of  all  His  teaching. 
It  is  true  again  that  parallel  passages  may  be 
found  elsewhere.  There  is  no  ethical  maxim 
for  which  it  is  not  possible  to  get  parallels 
in  many  places.  But  an  isolated  maxim  is 
not  a  principle.  What  was  before  a  momen- 
tary intuition  is  now  exalted  into  the  great 
principle  of  life.  A  study  of  the  use  of  the 
word  used  for  love — dyaTrrj — will  illustrate  this. 
*'  It  is  never  used  in  the  Classical  writers,  only 
occasionally  in  the  Septuagint  ;  in  early 
Christian  writers  its  use  becomes  habitual  and 
general.  Nothing  could  show  more  clearly 
that  a  new  principle  has  been  created  than 
this  creation  of  a  new  word."^ 

And  St.  Paul  in  his  use  of  it  correctly  inter- 
prets the  mind  of  Christ.  Christ  came,  he  tells 
us,  to  fulfil  the  law.  St.  Paul  tells  us  that  love 
is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law.  He  has  grasped 
the  whole  point  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 

And  as  with  the  general  principle,  so  with 
the  details.     There  are  many  parallels.     Occa- 

1  Sanday  and  Headlam,  "  Romans/'  p.  375. 


160         THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE 

sionally  St.  Paul  definitely  refers  to  the 
authority  of  the  Lord — in  Acts  once  in  a 
passage  where  there  is  no  parallel  in  our 
Gospels  :  "  Remember  the  words  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  how  he  himself  said,  It  is  more  blessed 
to  give  than  to  receive."^  Elsewhere  there  is 
a  parallel  in  the  Gospels.  "  Even  so  did  the 
Lord  ordain  that  they  which  proclaim  the 
gospel  should  live  of  the  gospel."^  And 
similarly  in  reference  to  marriage. 

Often  there  are  close  parallels  in  statement ; 
for  example,  in  relation  to  obedience  to  rulers, 
wisdom  in  this  world.  Still  more  often  there 
is  similarity  of  thought.  The  result  of  a  care- 
ful investigation  is  thus  summed  up  by  Mr. 
Scott  in  "  Cambridge  Biblical  Essays." 

"  A  closer  examination  of  the  relations  be- 
tween the  teaching  of  Jesus  and  that  of  Paul 
confirms  the  primary  impression  that  Paul 
reproduces  in  a  very  remarkable  way  the  mind 
of  Christ.  When  all  possible  allowance  has 
been  madfe  for  the  difference  of  tradition  and 
reminiscence,  and,  at  the  other  extreme,  for 
the  effect  of  his  having  the  completed  history  of 
Jesus  to  interpret,  there  remains  a  whole  series 
of  phenomena  of  which  no  account  has  been 
given.     Paul   shews  just  that  harmony  with 

1  Acts  XX.  35.  2  1  Cor.  ix.  14. 


ST.  PAUL  AND  CHRIST         161 

Jesus,  with  His  aim  and  method,  which  in 
another  we  should  put  down  to  intimacy.  In 
fact,  were  it  not  that  we  have  such  excellent 
reason  for  believing  that  he  was  not  one  of  the 
disciples  of  Jesus,  we  should  inevitably  have 
taken  him  to  be  one  of  these,  and  the  one 
among  them  who  had  entered  most  deeply 
into  his  Master's  spirit."^ 

It  seems  strange  that  difficulties  should  have 
arisen  as  to  the  source  of  St.  Paul's  ethical 
teaching.  His  teaching  was  what  it  was  be- 
cause he  was  a  Christian,  because  he  had  learnt 
it  from  the  records  of  our  Lord's  discourses 
which  were  preserved  by  the  Church,  because 
he  had  learnt  it  from  the  Christian  community, 
because  perhaps  more  than  others  he  had 
realized  to  the  full  the  Spirit  of  his  Master. 
Parallels,  of  course,  to  Christian  morality  may 
be  found  elsewhere,  and  it  is  natural  that  that 
should  be  possible,  for  the  Christian  moral 
teaching  is  but  the  explanation  and  interpreta- 
tion of  the  moral  sense  of  the  race.  But 
however  close  the  parallel,  there  is  always  a 
fundamental  difference.  All  Christian  teaching 
has  been  thought  to  be  found  in  the  traditions  of 
the  Rabbis,  and  no  doubt  many  sayings  of  our 

*  "  Cambridge  Biblical  Essays,"  p.  375 ;  cf.  Gardner^ 
"The  Religious  Experience  of  St.  Paul,"  chap,  vii., 
p.  139  et  sea. 

91 


162         THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE 

Lord  may  be  paralleled  there.     But  Rabbinism 
is  as  different  from  Christianity  as  a  lump  of 
coal    from   a   diamond.      There    are   striking 
resemblances    to    Stoicism,  but   the   spirit   of 
Stoicism  is  entirely  diiferent.     The   morality 
of  the  Stoic  philosopher  is  hard,  and  hence 
inhuman  ;  the  morality  of  the  Rabbi  is  lost  in 
his  devotion  to  detail.     St.  Paul,  like  the  other 
Apostles,  like   St.   Peter  and    St.   James  and 
St.  John,  seizes  the  fundamental   principle — 
the  Christian  aydirr).     He  grasps  it  even  more 
fully  than  they  do,  not,  perhaps,  so  much  in 
its  practical  manifestations  as  in  its  intellectual 
principles.     He  works   out   the   principles  of 
the  Christian  morality  even  more  profoundly 
than  they  do,  and  he  connects  it  intimately 
with   his  whole   theology.     The   love    of  the 
Christian  is  the  love  which  comes  to  him  from 
God,  which  God  had  shewn  to  man  in  Christ. 
"  Who   shall    separate   us   from   the   love   of 
Christ  ?  shall  tribulation,   or  anguish,  or  per- 
secution, or   famine,    or   nakedness,    or   peril, 
or  sword  ?  .  .  .     1  am  persuaded,  that  neither 
death,  nor  life,  nor  angels,  nor  principalities,  nor 
things  present,  nor  things  to  come,  nor  powers, 
nor  height,  nor  depth,  nor  any  other  creature, 
shall  be  able  to  separate  us  from  the  love  of 
God,  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord."^ 

1  Ji,^.  viii.  35-39. 


VIII 

THE  CHURCH 

Its  concrete  meaning — Its  religious  significance — Its  philo- 
sophical significance — Baptism — The  Lord's  Supper — 
Origin  of  the  idea  of  the  Church — Relation  to  our 
Lord's  teaching,  and  growth — Origin  of  the  Sacra- 
ments. 

The  expression  "  the  Church "  had  for  St. 
Paul  a  clear  and  definite  concrete  meaning. 
It  denoted  the  whole  body  of  Christian  people. 
It  was  not  to  him  a  new  term,  nor  one  which 
he  had  first  introduced.  He  uses  it  of  the 
society  which  he  had  persecuted.  "  I  perse- 
cuted the  church  of  God."^  This  society 
had  represented  something  new  in  the  world. 
Formerly  to  the  Jewish  mind  mankind  had 
been  divided  into  Jews  and  Gentiles  ;  now 
there  was  a  third  section,  consisting  of  both 
Jews  and  Gentiles,  called  "the  Church  of 
God."  "  Give  no  occasion  of  stumbhng, 
either  to  Jews,  or  to  Greeks,  or  to  the  church 
of  God."^     This  new  society  consisted  of  local 

1  Gal.  1.  13 ;  1  Cob.  xv.  9.  ^  1  Cor.  x.  32. 

163 


164  THE  CHURCH 

communities  scattered  throughout  the  world. 
Each  of  these  bore  the  name  of  "  Church,"  so 
there  was  "  the  Church  of  the  Thessalonians," 
''the  Church  of  God  which  is  at  Corinth," 
"  the  Church  that  is  at  Cenchreae,"  "  the 
Churches  of  Asia,  of  Galatia,  of  Macedonia  "  ; 
''the  Churches  of  Judaea  which  are  in  Christ"; 
and  generally  "  the  Churches  of  Christ "  is  a 
substitute  for  the  collective  term  "the  Church." 
The  word  was  also  used  in  a  sense  more  nearly 
resembling  the  ordinary  Greek  usage  for  the 
meeting  of  the  local  community  for  worship, 
for  discipline,  or  for  administration.^ 

This  society  was  to  a  certain  extent  an 
organized  body.  To  how  great  an  extent 
may  be  doubtful,  and  a  matter  of  controversy. 
Each  local  community  had  officers  to  govern 
it,  appointed  in  the  first  instance  by  the 
founder  of  the  Church,  but  subsequently 
probably  elected  by  the  community.  These 
bore  the  name  of  Presbyters,  but  they  were 
also  called  Bishops,  or  Episcopi,  and  Pastors. 
Each  community  was  organized  for  worship 
and  for  the  mutual  help  and  assistance  of  its 
members,  and  possessed  the  power  of  dis- 
cipline.    There  were  deacons  and  perhaps  also 

1  Rom.  xvi.  5;   1  Cor.  xi.  18;  xiv.  4,  5,   12,  19,  23,  28 
33-35;  Col.  iv.  1.5. 


THE  UNITY  OF  THE  CHURCHES    165 

deaconesses,  who   assisted   in   the  services  of 
the  Church  and  the  administration  of  alms. 

These  Churches  were  bound  together  by  the 
consciousness  of  their  common  origin,  and  by 
the  fact  that  they  were  all  recognized  as  the 
Churches  of  the  one  Messiah.  Over  all  the 
Churches  which  he  has  founded  St.  Paul 
claims  an  authority,  which  was  strong  and 
effective,  although  naturally  undefined  in 
its  character.  He  demands  that  all  shall 
adhere  to  the  common  customs  and  traditions. 
"  We  have  no  such  custom,  neither  the 
churches  of  God."^  His  whole  action  in 
connexion  with  the  Jewish  controversy  im- 
plies that  he  recognizes  that  he  cannot  act 
separately  from,  or  out  of  harmony  with, 
the  other  Apostles,  and  that  the  Apostolic 
body  of  which  he  claims  to  be  a  member 
has  an  authority,  however  little  it  may  be 
defined,  over  the  Church  as  a  whole.  Although 
this  authority  is  undefined,  it  is  very  real,  for 
its  ultimate  sanction  is  the  fact  that  member- 
ship of  the  Church  of  the  Messiah  is  the  neces- 
sary condition  of  salvation  when  the  Christ 
comes.  An  individual  who  is  separated  from 
the  Church  is  under  the  dominion  of  Satan, 
and  a  society  which  was  not  recognized  as  part 

1  1  Cor.  xi.  i6. 


166  THE  CHURCH 

of  the  Church  would  be  cut  off  from  the 
Christian  hope.  St.  Paul  laid  before  them 
who  were  of  repute  "  the  gospel  which  he 
preached  among  the  Gentiles,"  "lest  by  any 
means  he  should  be  running,  or  had  run,  in 
vain."^ 

But  if  this  society  was  united  under  the 
authority  of  the  Apostles,  still  more  was  it 
joined  together  in  more  spiritual  bonds.  Hospi- 
tality was  the  rule  of  the  Church,  and  members 
travelling  were  entertained.  They  carried  with 
them  letters  of  commendation.  There  were 
others  besides  the  Apostles  who  travelled  from 
church  to  church — prophets  and  evangelists ; 
there  were  messengers  from  the  Apostles ; 
there  were  delegates  sent  by  the  Churches — 
the  Apostles  of  the  Churches,  they  were  called. 
Above  all,  as  a  sign  of  the  brotherly  love  which 
should  knit  together  all  the  Churches  of  Christ, 
St.  Paul  had  organized  throughout  all  the 
Gentile  Churches  which  he  had  founded  a 
great  collection  for  the  poor  Christians  in 
Jerusalem.  "But  now,  1  say,  I  go  unto 
Jerusalem,  ministering  unto  the  saints.  For 
it  hath  been  the  good  pleasure  of  Macedonia 
and  Achaia  to  make  a  certain  contribution  for 
the  poor  among  the  saints  that  are  at  Jerusalem. 

1  Gal.  ii.  2. 


MEMBERS  OF  THE  CHURCH     167 

Yea,  it  hath  been  then-  good  pleasure ;  and 
their  debtors  they  are.  For  if  the  Gentiles 
have  been  made  partakers  of  their  spiritual 
things,  they  owe  it  to  them  also  to  minister 
unto  them  in  carnal  things."^ 

Such,  then,  was,  on  its  concrete  side,  this 
new  society.  But  to  St.  Paul  it  was  far  more 
than  this.  It  had  for  him  a  profound  religious 
and  philosophical  significance,  and  it  is  these 
aspects  that  it  is  most  important  for  us  to 
consider. 

I 

Its  religious  significance  was  shewn  in  the 
character  of  its  members.  They  had  been 
chosen  before  the  foundation  of  the  world 
to  be  holy  and  without  blame  before  God  in 
love  ;  they  had  been  foreordained  to  be  sons 
of  God  through  Jesus  Christ ;  for  they  were 
redeemed  by  the  blood  of  Christ;  their  sins 
had  been  forgiven  ;  they  were  recipients  above 
measure  of  the  Divine  grace ;  to  them  had 
been  revealed  the  Divine  purpose  of  God  in 
the  world.  They  were  the  holy,  the  elect,  the 
called. 

A  society  thus  constituted  must  naturally 
have  characteristics  unlike  those  of  any  other 
society,  and  to  St.  Paul  its  distinctive  features 

1  Rom.  XV.  25-27. 


168  THE  CHURCH 

were  fundamental.  It  was  to  him  the  body 
of  Christ ;  it  was  the  fulness,  for  it  fulfilled  all 
God's  purpose  in  the  world,  and  it  helped  to 
complete  the  very  being  and  nature  of  Christ ; 
through  it  has  been  made  known  the  manifold 
wisdom  of  God  ;  in  it  is  celebrated  the  Divine 
glory. 

The  Christian  who  was  a  member  of  this 
society  was,  St.  Paul  has  told  us,  "  in  Christ " — 
that  is,  he  was  spiritually  united  with  Christ, 
and  this  union  was  brought  about  when  he 
was  made  a  member  of  that  Church  which  was 
the  body  of  Christ.  Herein  lies  the  deep 
religious  significance  of  the  conception  of 
the  Church — a  significance  which  St.  Paul 
elaborates  in  various  metaphors. 

The  Church  is  the  Body  of  Christ.  This 
metaphor  St.  Paul  uses  in  more  than  one  way, 
and  we  may  be  allowed  to  quote  an  impressive 
passage  from  Dr.  Armitage  Robinson's  com- 
mentary on  the  Ephesians,  which  brings  out 
the  significance  of  the  Apostle's  language. 

"  When  St.  Paul  combats  the  spirit  of 
jealousy  and  division  in  the  Corinthian  Church, 
he  works  out  in  detail  the  metaphors  of  the 
Body  and  its  several  parts.  But  he  does  not 
there  speak  of  Christ  as  the  Head.  .  .  .  Indeed, 
in  that  great  passage  Christ  has,  if  possible,  a 


CHRIST  AND  THE  CHURCH     169 

more  impressive  position  still :  He  is  no  part,  but 
rather  the  whole  of  which  the  various  members 
are  parts  :  '  for  as  the  body  is  one  and  hath 
many  members,  and  all  the  members  of  the 
body,  being  many,  are  one  body  :  so  also  is  the 
Christ.'^  This  is  in  exact  correspondence  with 
the  image  employed  by  our  Lord  Himself: 
*I  am  the  vine,  ye  are  the  branches.'^  That 
is  to  say,  not  '  I  am  the  trunk  of  the  vine,  and 
ye  the  branches  growing  out  of  the  trunk  ' ;  but 
rather,  '  I  am  the  living  whole,  ye  are  the  parts 
whose  life  is  a  life  dependent  on  the  whole.'  "^ 

But  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  the 
metaphor  is  differently  used.  There  "  he  has 
begun  with  the  exalted  Christ ;  and  he  has 
been  led  on  to  declare  that  the  relation  of 
the  exalted  Christ  to  His  Church  is  that  of 
the  head  to  the  body."*  When  he  speaks  of 
marriage,  again,  the  metaphor  is  somewhat 
altered.  Christ  is  "head  of  the  Church," 
"  saviour  of  the  body ;"  ^  but  the  relationship 
is  also  like  that  of  marriage.  Christ  loves  and 
cherishes  the  Church,  and  the  union  is  like  that 
of  man  and  wife — "  they  twain  are  one  flesh.  "^ 

Even  more  remarkable  is  the  conception 
that  the  Church  completes  Christ.    The  Church 

1   1  Cor.  xii.  12.  2  John  xv.  5. 

^  Robinson,  "Ephesians,"  pp.  41-42. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  42.  5  Eph.  v.  23.  ^  Eph.  v.  29-31. 


170  THE  CHURCH 

as  the  body  of  Christ  represents  Him  in  the 
world,  and  here  it  works  as  He  once  worked. 
But  the  exalted  Christ  will  not  be  complete 
until  He  is  united  with  the  Church  of  the 
redeemed.  For  Christ  is  to  be  "all  in  all," 
and  He  only  gains  that  fulness  through  the 
Church.  And  so  in  suffering  also  there  is  a 
complete  union  between  Christ  and  His 
Church.  All  that  He  suffered  the  Church 
shared  in ;  they  were  not  the  sufferings  of  one 
apart  from  Him.  And  so  what  we  suffer  on 
earth  Christ  shares ;  hence  St.  Paul  is  able 
to  say :  "  Now  I  rejoice  in  my  sufferings  for 
your  sake,  and  fill  up  on  my  part  that  which  is 
lacking  of  the  afflictions  of  Christ  in  my  flesh 
for  his  body's  sake,  which  is  the  church."^ 

And  the  Church  also  is  in  a  special  sense  the 
dwelling-place  and  sphere  of  working  of  the 
Spirit.  "  In  one  Spirit  were  we  all  baptized 
into  one  body."^  "  Ye  are  builded  together 
for  a  habitation  of  God  in  the  Spirit."^  "  There 
is  one  body,  and  one  Spirit."  Hence  the  gifts 
of  the  Spirit  are  given,  not  for  the  benefit 
of  the  individual  members  of  the  Church,  but 
for  the  benefit  of  the  Church  as  a  whole,  and 
all  those  who  receive  gifts  of  the  Spirit  receive 
them  for  the  benefit  of  the  Church,  and  not  for 

A  Col.  i.  24,.  2  1  Cor.  xii.  1^^.  »  Eph.  ii.  22. 


THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH      171 

their  own  benefit.  God  hath  appointed  in 
the  Church  apostles,  prophets,  and  teachers, 
and  all  the  many  gifts  of  the  Spirit,^  and  those 
gifts  are  best  which  most  clearly  edify  the 
Church.  Again,  in  Ephesians  he  describes 
the  various  officers  that  have  been  appointed — 
apostles,  prophets,  evangelists,  pastors,  and 
teacher^,  and  their  work  is  stated  to  be  "  for 
the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  unto  the  work  of 
ministering,  unto  the  building  up  of  the  body  of 
Christ,"^  and  in  and  through  the  body  which 
is  of  Christ  there  come  all  the  different  gifts 
for  the  building  up  of  each  individual,  and  the 
uniting  them  together  in  the  bonds  of  love. 

But  the  Church  also  has  another  significance. 
It  is  through  the  Church  that  the  Divine 
purpose  is  fulfilled.  The  Epistle  to  the 
Ephesians  describes  the  "  universal " — that  is  to 
say,  the  "  Catholic  " — Church.  Those  who  had 
been  Gentiles — the  uncircumcised,  separated 
from  the  old  Israel  by  the  middle  wall  of 
partition,  strangers  from  the  promises,  having 
no  hope,  and  without  God  in  the  world — those 
had  been  united  in  the  body  by  the  blood 
of  Christ.  Christ  had  made  peace  between 
the  two  great  sections  of  mankind.  He  had 
broken  down  the  barrier  which  had  separated 

1  1  Cor.  xii.  28.  ^  gp^^  jy   1U13. 


172  THE  CHURCH 

them  from  one  another  ;  that  was  really  the 
law.  They  had  become  one  body  in  Him. 
Thus  was  created  the  great  world-wide  society 
the  Church,  which  was  the  household  of  God 
— the  habitation  of  God  in  the  Spirit.  It 
had  been  built  upon  the  foundations  of  the 
apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  Himself 
being  the  chief  corner-stone. 

All  this  was  the  result  of  the  eternal  purpose 
of  God.  It  was  the  revelation  of  a  mystery, 
unknown  to  former  generations,  now  revealed 
in  the  Spirit  to  Christ's  holy  apostles  and 
prophets.  This  dispensation  had  been  through- 
out the  ages  hidden  in  God  ;  it  was  the  Divine 
purpose  of  the  ages,  the  manifold  creation  of 
God.  It  is  now  made  known  in  the  Church. 
And  it  is  this  revelation  of  the  wonderful  love 
of  Christ  that  makes  the  Church  the  sphere 
in  which  throughout  all  the  ages  the  glory  of 
God  will  be  told. 

II 

Closely  connected  with  the  idea  of  the 
Church,  both  on  its  concrete  and  its  religious 
side,  as  an  external  unity  and  as  the  sphere  in 
which  the  Christian  was  united  with  Christ, 
were  the  two  great  Christian  rites  about  which 
we  learn  from  St.  Paul — Baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper. 


SACRAMENTS  173 

We  speak  of  these  as  "sacraments,"  but  there 
is  no  word  in  St.  Paul  corresponding  to  that. 
Mystery  is  always  used  in  a  different  sense. 
Nor  is  there  any  one  word  which  describes 
them.  But  not  only  does  St.  Paul  teach  us 
about  each  separately,  but  there  is  in  the  First 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  what  we  may 
describe  as  teaching  on  the  right  use  of  sacra- 
ments. The  situation  in  Corinth  has  been  made 
clear  for  us  by  Mr.  Kirsopp  Lake  in  his  book 
on  the  early  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  There  had 
clearly  been  considerable  abuse  of  the  Sacra- 
ments. They  were  congenial  to  an  Hellenic 
atmosphere.  That  much  we  may  say  quite 
certainly.  There  was  a  tendency  to  interpret 
them  in  a  magical  way.  To  St.  Paul,  as  we 
shall  see,  they  were,  like  all  his  religious  con- 
ceptions, strongly  ethical.  The  situation  he 
has  to  deal  with  is  one  in  which  some  of  the 
Corinthians  thought  that,  provided  they  were 
baptized  and  shared  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  it 
did  not  matter  how  they  lived.  They  would 
quite  certainly  be  saved.  With  this  St.  Paul 
deals  in  the  tenth  chapter  of  1  Corinthians.  The 
Jews  of  old  time  had  their  sacraments.  They 
were  baptized  in  the  sea  and  in  the  cloud. 
They  ate  a  spiritual  meat  and  drank  a  spiritual 
drink.       Yet,    because    of    their    sins,    their 


174  THE  CHURCH 

idolatry,  their  lust,  their  discontent,  their 
spiritual  presumption,  they  had  been  grievously 
punished.  All  this  was  written  for  an  example. 
We,  like  them,  have  been  baptized :  they 
into  Moses,  we  into  Christ.  We,  like  them, 
partake  of  spiritual  food.  If,  like  them,  we 
yield  to  temptations,  we  shall,  like  them,  be 
punished.  Some  of  the  Corinthians  clearly 
had  sinned,  and  had  already  received  punish- 
ment for  profaning  the  Lord's  Supper  :  "  For 
this  cause  many  among  you  are  weak  and 
sickly,  and  not  a  few  sleep.  "^ 

Now,  all  this  shews  us  clearly  the  reality  of 
the  sacramental  principle  in  the  Early  Church. 
No  perversion  such  as  this  would  have  been 
possible  had  the  Sacraments  been  looked  upon 
as  mere  symbols  ;  and  if  that  had  been  St.  Paul's 
teaching  he  would  have  said  so,  in  contra- 
diction to  the  false  teaching  that  had  arisen. 
Instead  he  bases  his  admonition  in  all  cases  on 
the  real  spiritual  significance  of  the  sacrament. 
It  is  because  in  the  Communion  we  are  joined 
with  the  Lord  that  we  must  avoid  idolatry. 
It  is  because  in  baptism  we  are  incorporated 
with  Christ  that  we  must  no  longer  live  to  sin. 

About  baptism  it  is  never  necessary  for 
St.  Paul  to  give  any  explicit  teaching.     He 

1   1  Cor.  xi.  30. 


BAPTISM  175 

can  always  assume  that  those  he  is  addressing 
have  been  baptized,  and  that  they  recognize 
fully  the  significance  of  baptism.  It  clearly 
meant  the  actual  incorporation  with  the 
Church,  which  was  the  body  of  Christ.  "  For 
in  one  Spirit  were  we  all  baptized  into  one 
body,  whether  Jews  or  Greeks,  whether  bond 
or  free  ;  and  were  all  made  to  drink  of  one 
Spirit."^  It  therefore  signified  also  spiritual 
incorporation  into  Christ :  "  Or  are  ye  ignorant 
that  all  we  who  were  baptized  into  Christ  Jesus 
were  baptized  into  his  death  ?  We  were  buried 
therefore  with  him  through  baptism  into  death  : 
that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead 
through  the  glory  of  the  Father,  so  we  also 
might  walk  in  newness  of  life."^  Throughout 
St.  Paul  assumes  that  these  facts  are  under- 
stood, and  argues  on  the  basis  of  the  universal 
recognition  of  what  baptism  implied.  He 
wishes  to  emphasize  the  folly  of  disputing  about 
spiritual  gifts.  He  does  so  by  shewing  that 
all  our  gifts  have  come  from  the  gift  of  the 
one  Spirit  in  baptism,  by  which  we  were  made 
members  of  the  body  of  Christ,  and  all  disputes 
about  precedence  or  privilege  are  inconsistent 
with  that  membership.  So  in  the  sixth  chapter 
of  Romans  St.  Paul  argues  that  by  baptism  we 

1   1  Cor.  xii.  13.  ^  ^^^  ^j   3.^ 


176  THE  CHURCH 

have  been  incorporated  with  Christ,  and  that  all 
that  this  implies  is  entirely  inconsistent  with  a 
life  of  sin.  Baptism  is  clearly  accepted  by  all,  and 
there  is  general  agreement  as  to  what  it  implies. 

Equally  significant  is  St.  Paul's  doctrine  of 
the  Lord's  Supper. 

"  The  cup  of  blessing  that  we  bless,  is  it  not 
a  communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ?  The 
bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not  a  communion 
of  the  body  of  Christ  ?  Seeing  that  we,  who 
are  many,  are  one  bread,  one  body:  for  we 
all  partake  of  the  one  bread.  Behold  Israel 
after  the  flesh :  have  not  they  which  eat  the 
sacrifices  communion  with  the  altar?  What 
say  I  then  ?  that  a  thing  sacrificed  to  idols  is 
anything,  or  that  an  idol  is  anything  ?  But 
I  say  that  the  things  which  the  Gentiles 
sacrifice,  they  sacrifice  to  devils  and  not  to 
God  :  and  I  would  not  that  ye  should  have 
communion  with  devils."^ 

What  St.  Paul  means  is  that  just  as  in  all 
sacrifices  or  sacrificial  feasts,  whether  Jewish  or 
Gentile,  the  worshipper  believed  that  he  was 
in  communion  with  his  God,  so  in  this  Chris- 
tian sacrifice  the  worshipper  was  united  with 
Christ.  To  St.  Paul  there  was  nothing  sym- 
bolical about  it.     It  was  very  real. 

1  1  Cor.  X.  16-20. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  CHURCH     177 

One  more  remark  in  passing.  It  is  very 
probable  that  the  metaphor  of  the  body,  as 
apphed  to  the  Church,  rose  out  of  the  Eucha- 
rist. Our  Lord  had  said,  "  This  is  my  body." 
St.  Paul  felt  that  all  those  who  were  partakers 
of  that  body  were  incorporated  with  Christ :  so 
he  says  we  who  are  many  are  one  bread,  one 
body.  And  afterwards  he  regularly  applies  the 
term  "  body  "  to  the  Christian  unity  of  those 
who  were  incorporated  in  Christ.  Of  the 
reality  of  sacramental  communion  there  was 
to  him  no  doubt. 

Ill 

The  above  exposition  will  make  it  clear  that 
in  the  opinion  of  the  present  writer  the  con- 
ceptions of  Church  and  Sacraments  were  shared 
by  St.  Paul  with  the  rest  of  the  Christian 
Church,  and  were  part  of  what  he  had  received 
from  it. 

The  word  ''  Church  "  means  fundamentally 
a  religious  society,  and  both  the  word  and  the 
idea  had  their  origin  in  Judaism.  The  Jew 
had  always  associated  religion  with  a  society. 
Originally  a  nation  claiming  to  have  a  common 
ancestry,  Israel  was  more  and  more  coming  to 
be  a  purely  religious  body,  and  the  Jews  of  the 
Dispersion  represented  very  much  what  we 
conceive  by  a  Church,  only  their  narrow  views 

23 


178  THE  CHURCH 

prevented  them  from  expanding.  But  the 
ecclesia,  or  congregation  of  the  saints,  was 
ahnost  to  them  a  spiritual  society.  Israel 
represented  the  nation  in  its  religious  aspect. 
All  were  ready  for  a  new  conception,  as  the 
world  in  which  the  old  State  religions  had  really 
become  an  impossibility  was  also  ready  for  such 
a  conception. 

This  society  our  Lord  had  founded.  He 
had  done  so  when  He  collected  followers 
around  Him,  when  He  selected  and  gave  a 
commission  to  Apostles,  when  He  gave  His 
followers  a  Divine  law,  when  He  adopted  or 
instituted  the  Sacraments.  And  according  to 
our  records  He  used  the  name  ;  He  spoke  of 
the  foundation  of  the  ecclesia  of  the  Messiah, 
and  gave  that  ecclesia  authority  to  bind  and  to 
loose.  It  may  be  noted  that  all  the  passages 
referring  to  the  Church  in  St.  Matthew's 
Gospel  are  undoubtedly  .lewish  in  their  lan- 
guage and  thought. 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  gives  us  an  ac- 
count of  the  development  of  this  society  out 
of  the  small  body  of  disciples  who  met  together 
after  the  Resurrection.  It  grew  up  on  the 
acceptance  of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  in  the  faith 
of  the  Resurrection,  on  the  authority  of  the 
Apostles,  on  the  ideas  of  community,  of  disci- 


GROWTH  OF  THE  CHURCH    179 

pleship,  of  worship,  and  of  the  sacraments 
derived  from  our  Lord.  The  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  represent  to  us  (probably  in  the  main 
historically)  the  gradual  steps  in  the  develop- 
ment of  the  society  and  the  realization  of  its 
ideals.  It  was  just  at  the  stage  when  it  was 
beginning  to  realize  its  universality,  and  was 
breaking  through  the  limits  of  Judaism,  that 
St.  Paul  was  converted,  and,  like  all  new  con- 
verts, he  grasped  Christianity  without  any  of 
the  prepossessions  and  limitations  of  the  older 
Apostles.  He  saw  in  more  than  one  direction 
more  clearly  than  they  its  significance,  and 
both  in  fact  and  idea  developed  the  significance 
of  the  Christian  Church.  No  doubt  his  ex- 
perience helped  to  deepen  his  conceptions.  It 
is  an  interesting  subject  of  speculation  how  far 
the  fact  that  he  was  a  Roman  citizen  influenced 
his  thoughts  ;  it  is  still  more  interesting  to 
recognize  that  his  teaching  on  the  heavenly 
citizenship,  the  universal  mission  of  the  Church, 
and  the  Christian  warfare,  were  all  developed 
when  he  was  a  prisoner  in  Rome,  when  he  had 
realized  the  might  and  extension  of  the  Roman 
Empire,  when  he  was  chained  to  a  Roman 
soldier  armed  with  his  weapons  and  accoutre- 
ments, an  ever-present  reminder  of  the  earthly 
kingdom  and  the  earthly  warfare. 


180  THE  CHURCH 

It  would  be  impossible  to  discuss  with  ful- 
ness the  question  of  the  origin  of  the  Christian 
Sacraments,  about  which  such  divergent  ideas 
prevail  at  the  present  day.  The  exposition 
already  given  will  make  it  clear  that  a  right 
interpretation  of  1  Corinthians  exhibits  con- 
ceptions of  Hebraic  origin  in  contrast  with  an 
Hellenic  perversion.  St.  Paul  always  refers 
to  baptism  as  something  recognized  by  all 
types  of  Christians.  He  never  has  any  need 
to  argue  about  its  significance,  he  can  assume 
that  it  is  recognized.  When  he  refers  to  the 
Lord's  Supper  he  definitely  ascribes  his  know- 
ledge to  a  tradition  derived  from  our  Lord, 
and  it  is  impossible  to  believe  that  the  expres- 
sion "  received  "  has  a  different  meaning  in  the 
eleventh  from  what  it  has  in  the  fifteenth  chapter 
of  1  Corinthians.  Both  the  Lord's  Supper 
and  the  Resurrection  were  part  of  the  Christian 
tradition  St.  Paul  had  received.  The  account 
of  it  is  an  independent,  a  fuller,  possibly  a 
more  correct  narrative  than  that  at  the  basis 
of  the  Synoptic  account.  And  all  the  lan- 
guage used  is  Jewish  and  not  Hellenic  in 
character. 

Both  the  Sacraments  were  part  of  the  normal 
Christian  tradition,  and  that  was  derived  from 
the    Lord.     The   origin  of  baptism   was   the 


ORIGIN  OF  SACRAMENTS      181 

action  of  John   the   Baptist.     Jesus    Himself 
was  baptized  ;  how  is  it  reasonable  to  think 
that  what  He  thought  right  Himself,  "  that  He 
might  fulfil  all  righteousness,"  He  would  not 
think  necessary  for   others  ?     Its   theological 
significance  arose  out  of  its  Messianic  character. 
To  be  saved  at  the  last  day  the  Christian  must 
be   enrolled    as   a   follower   of  Christ.     That 
enrolment  took  place   in   baptism,  when   he 
received  the  "  seal  of  God  "  on  his  forehead, 
to   be   his   defence   in   the   final   catastrophe. 
This  meant  to  St.  Paul  much  more  than  an 
external  defence  ;  it  meant  an  incorporation 
with  Christ,  and  baptism  thus  came  to  mean 
for  him,  as  for  the  Church,  union  with  Christ. 
The  significance  of  the  Lord's  Supper  may  be 
derived  from  the  action  of  our  Lord  before  His 
death,  and  from  the  transmutation  to  the  new 
conditions  of  the  Messianic  community  of  the 
religious  conceptions  contained  in  the  Passover 
as  the  great  covenant  sacrifice.     Our  earliest 
narratives  exhibit  baptism  and  the  breaking  of 
bread   as   original   rites  of  the  Church  ;    the 
Gospels  derive  their  origin,  the  one  from  the 
action  of  John  the  Baptist,  the  other  from  our 
Lord.     Their  universal  acceptance  can  only  be 
explained  on  the  basis  of  an  early  origin,  and 
corroborate  the  actual  testimony  of  our  sources. 


IX 

THE  DIVINE  PURPOSE 

Jewish  "  Philosophy  of  History  " — St.  Paul's  interpretation 
ol  God's  purpose  in  the  world — Free-will  and  Divine 
purpose — St.  Paul's  solution — Its  relation  to  Jewish 
teaching. 

It  was  one  of  the  characteristics  of  later 
Judaism  that  it  learnt  to  look  on  God's 
purpose  in  the  world  as  a  whole,  and  had 
created  what  in  more  modern  language  might 
be  called  a  "  Philosophy  of  History."  It  was 
the  outcome  of  the  belief  in  one  God  as  ruler 
of  the  whole  earth.  The  Jews  had  learnt  to 
believe  that,  through  all  the  vicissitudes  and 
changes  of  life,  through  all  the  strange  up- 
heavals of  kingdoms,  which  had  been  so  con- 
spicuous a  feature  of  the  advance  of  the  Roman 
Empire,  God's  purpose  had  been  working. 
The  Books  of  Daniel  and  Enoch  had  taught 
this  lesson  in  the  past,  the  Books  of  Baruch 
and  Esdras  were  to  do  so  after  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem,  and  all  these  writers  alike  dwelt  in 
hope  of  the  establishment  of  the  Kingdom  of 

182 


PHILOSOPHY  OF  HISTORY     183 

God.  Even  though  Jerusalem  were  destroyed 
and  given  up  to  the  heathen,  Baruch  could 
still  ask,  in  words  which  might  almost  have 
been  written  by  St.  Paul :  "  Who,  O  Lord, 
ruler  of  the  world,  will  follow  out  thy  judge- 
ment, or  who  can  investigate  the  depths  of 
thy  path,  or  who  can  think  out  the  profound- 
ness of  thy  ways  ?  Who  can  think  out  thy 
incomprehensible  council  ?  or  what  son  of  man 
shall  discover  the  beginning  or  ending  of  thy 
wisdom  ?"^  And  he  could  still  believe  that 
this  was  only  a  prelude  to  Zion  being  rebuilt 
and  her  glory  renewed.  So  strong  was  his  faith 
that  he  still  believed  that  God  must  have  a 
glorious  future  for  the  people  that  He  had 
chosen.  Just  as  every  loyal  Jew  was  over- 
whelmed by  the  problem  created  by  the  de- 
struction of  his  country,  and  found  it  difficult 
to  preserve  his  faith,  so  the  Jew  who  had 
become  a  Christian,  and  felt  that  in  the  Chris- 
tian Church  God's  purposes  were  fulfilled,  was 
naturally  perplexed  by  the  failure  of  his  fellow- 
countrymen  to  accept  the  message  of  the 
Gospel. 

St.  Paul  had,  as  his  education  and  training 
made  natural,  a  conception  of  God's  purpose 
in  the  world,  a  Philosophy  of  History,  which 

1  Apoc.  Baruch,  xiv.  8. 


184         THE  DIVINE  PURPOSE 

we  find  throughout  the  Epistles,  and  he  dis- 
cusses in  some  most  difficult  chapters  this 
Divine  purpose  in  relation  to  the  fate  of  his 
fellow-Jews. 

I 

To  St.  Paul  the  Gospel  was  the  revelation 
of  a  Divine  mystery.  The  word  '*  mystery  "  was 
one  which  came  to  him  direct  from  the  later 
Jewish  literature,  and  was  used  in  it  to 
express  something  that  was  secret,  and  in  par- 
ticular, a  "  Divine  secret."  St.  Paul  uses  it,  in 
a  somewhat  special  sense,  to  mean  the  secret 
of  God's  purpose  for  the  world,  a  secret 
mystery,  a  Divine  purpose  determined  before- 
hand by  God  before  the  worlds,  treasured  in 
silence  through  eternal  ages,  unknown  to  the 
Princes  of  this  world,  but  now  revealed  through 
the  Holy  Spirit  to  the  Church.  This  Divine 
mystery  included  the  whole  process  of  human 
redemption,  and  in  particular  the  inclusion  of 
Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews  in  one  common  hope 
and  one  common  society  in  Christ. 

There  is  probably  no  subject  on  which 
St.  Paul  could  have  said  more  definitely  that 
"  now  we  see  in  a  glass  darkly  ";  but  he  believed 
that  this  conception  of  God's  purpose  could 
explain  the  many  difficulties  that  he  had  in 
reconciling  his  faith  in  God  with  the  actual 


THE  FULNESS  OF  TIME        185 

facts  of  human  life — a  difficulty  which  was  not 
so  great  for  him  as  it  was  for  the  writers  of  the 
Apocalypse  of  Baruch  or  the  Book  of  Esdras. 
It  would  help  to  explain  to  him  the  purpose  of 
the  law,  which  would  represent  a  preparatory 
stage,  preparing  the  way  for  Christ.  In  one 
place  he  tells  us  that  the  Lord  had  sent  forth 
His  Son  in  the  fulness  of  time.  That  implied 
for  him  that  the  time  which  God  had  appointed 
had  come.  We  can  interpret  it,  from  our  wider 
knowledge  of  human  history,  in  a  way  which 
might  illustrate  and  support  his  view,  but  such 
speculations  were  probably  alien  to  his  mind. 
The  fulness  was  the  time  fulfilled  in  God's  good 
pleasure.  Once  St.  Paul  connects  this  purpose 
of  God  with  the  whole  universe,  in  a  manner 
drawn  from  apocalyptic  thought :  "  the  whole 
creation  groaneth  and  travaileth  together  until 
now  ";  it  waiteth  with  earnest  expectation  for 
the  full  revelation  of  the  sons  of  God,  when 
this  period  of  slavery  and  conflict  will  make 
way  for  the  new  life  of  freedom  and  Divine 
sonship,  when,  in  the  words  of  the  Apocalypse, 
there  will  be  a  new  heaven  and  a  new  earth. 

But  this  conception  of  an  eternal  purpose  of 
God  working  in  the  world  helps  St.  Paul  to 
understand  what  to  him,  as  a  believing  Jew, 
was  the  hardest  problem  of  all — the  fact  that 


186         THE  DIVINE  PURPOSE 

the  greater  number  of  his  fellow-countrymen 
had  not  accepted  the  Gospel,  and  were  now 
cut  off  from  any  share  in  these  promises.  It 
is  this  problem  that  St.  Paul  attacks  in  the 
ninth,  tenth,  and  eleventh  chapters  of  Romans. 
So  great  is  his  love  for  his  fellow-countrymen 
that  he  would  give  up  his  own  hopes  of  salva- 
tion for  their  sakes.  He  enumerates  their 
privileges.  They  were  the  adopted  sons  ol 
God  ;  among  them  dwelt  the  Divine  glory. 
They  were  in  covenant  relations  with  God  ; 
theirs  was  the  law,  and  the  worship  of  the 
Temple,  and  the  promises.  Through  them, 
last  of  all,  the  Messiah  had  come.  And  yet 
they  were  rejected. 

First  of  all,  there  had  been  no  failure  of  the 
Divine  promises.  There  had  always  been  a 
Divine  purpose  working  through  election,  but 
in  no  case  was  there  a  universal  election  of  a 
people ;  the  promise  was  for  those  chosen  by 
God  according  to  His  eternal  purpose.  Nor 
could  there  be  any  complaint  against  God  on 
the  ground  of  natural  rights.  We  are  all  as 
clay  in  the  hands  of  the  potter.  If  He  chooses 
to  select  some  only  for  mercy  and  salvation, 
we  have  no  cause  for  complaint.  We  have  no 
rights  before  God.  Then  St.  Paul  shews  that, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  was  through  their  own 


THE  REJECTION  OF  ISRAEL     187 

fault  that  Israel  fell ;  they  had  received  full 
offers  of  Messianic  salvation,  and  they  had 
rejected  it.  But  this  was  not  all.  The  rejec- 
tion was  not  complete,  and  it  was  not  final. 
A  remnant  had  been  saved.  And  in  all  this 
there  had  been  a  Divine  purpose.  "  By  their 
fall  salvation  is  come  unto  the  Gentiles."  St. 
Paul  remembers  his  own  career.  It  had  been 
one  of  the  most  bitter  disappointments  of  his 
life  when  in  the  synagogue  of  Iconium  his 
fellow-countrymen  had  rejected  him,  when  he 
had  uttered  those  memorable  words,  **  from 
henceforth  we  go  to  the  Gentiles";  but  yet 
that,  in  God's  good  purpose,  had  been  the 
beginning  of  the  great  work  of  his  life.  It 
had  created  all  those  great  bodies  of  Gentile 
Christians  which  he  had  built  up.  Clearly, 
this  proved  that  God's  purpose  was  far  more 
wonderful  than  anything  which  we  could 
realize,  and  we  must  believe  that  He  has  a 
still  more  wonderful  purpose  to  work  out  in 
the  future.  The  Gentiles  have  received  salva- 
tion to  provoke  the  chosen  people  to  jealousy. 
Their  fall  has  been  the  riches  of  the  world ; 
their  loss  has  been  the  riches  of  the  Gentiles. 
What  shall  be  their  entry  into  the  JNIessianic 
kingdom  but  life  from  the  dead,  the  fulfilling 
of  God's  purpose  in  the  world  ? 


188        THE  DIVINE  PURPOSE 

And  so  St.  Paul  feels  that  he  has  obtamed 
some  insight  into  the  great  mystery  of  God's 
purpose.  The  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  shall 
come  in.  All  Israel  shall  be  saved.  Through 
sin  and  disobedience  is  worked  out  salvation. 
The  Gentiles  have  been  saved  by  the  Divine 
mercy ;  Israel  shall  also  be  saved  by  the 
Divine  mercy.  "  God  hath  shut  up  all  unto 
disobedience,  that  he  might  have  mercy 
upon  all."^  And  St.  Paul  expresses  his  faith  in 
the  Divine  mercy  of  God  in  words  like  those 
of  the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch:  "  Oh  the  depth  of 
the  riches  both  of  the  wisdom  and  the  know- 
ledge of  God  I  how  unsearchable  are  his  judge- 
ments, and  his  ways  past  finding  out  !"^ 

It  is  the  position  that  St.  Paul  has  thus 
gained  by  his  experience  and  his  faith  in  God's 
purpose  that  is  implied  in  the  great  doxology 
at  the  end  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  a 
doxology  which  could  not  have  been  written 
by  anyone  in  the  Apostolic  Church  except 
St.  Paul,  and  by  him  at  no  other  stage  in  his 
life.  It  is  the  position  wliich  has  been  gained 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  that  forms  the 
basis  of  the  great  doctrine  of  a  Universal  Church 
as  it  is  developed  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephe- 
sians.     What  we  are  concerned  with  realizing 

1  Rom.  xi.  32.  =^  Ihid.  33. 


THE  DIVINE  PROVIDENCE     189 

is  that  St.  Paul  has  learnt  to  see  everywhere 
traces  of  a  Divine  government  of  the  world ; 
that  there  has  been  an  eternal  purpose  of  God 
working  through  a  principle  of  selection,  that 
God  chose  the  Jewish  race  for  the  work  that 
they  had  to  do  in  the  world,  that  through 
them  He  taught  the  world  what  we  should, 
in  our  modern  phraseology,  call  an  ethical 
monotheism,  that  through  them  He  prepared 
the  way  for  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  and 
the  higher  revelation  through  Christ.  It  is 
this  principle  which  will  enable  us  equally 
with  St.  Paid  to  see  God's  selection  working 
in  history,  to  believe  that  He  has  selected 
other  nations  for  other  work  in  the  world  ;  and 
it  will  also  suggest  to  us  the  same  principle  of 
faith  in  God's  government  of  the  world  which 
St.  Paul  teaches.  There  was  much  that  St. 
Paul  did  not  understand,  but  he  had  learnt 
that  God's  ways  were  wiser  than  our  ways, 
and  he  can  acquiesce  in  what  has  happened, 
for  he  can  believe  that  it  is  part  of  a  deeper 
purpose  than  he  can  comprehend. 


II 

But  we  have  not  exhausted  the  problems 
raised  by  St.   Paul's    argument.     It  is   quite 


190        THE  DIVINE  PURPOSE 

true  that  he  is  speaking  throughout  of  election 
to  a  privileged  position,  and  that  he  is  dis- 
cussing God's  purpose  in  dealing  with  nations 
and  bodies  of  men  ;  but  we  cannot  separate  the 
question  raised  from  that  of  the  purpose  of 
God  with  regard  to  individuals,  and  in  par- 
ticular the  relation  of  the  free  will  of  the 
individual  to  the  Divine  providence. 

The  Christian  is  one  whom  God  has  chosen 
from  the  beginning  for  sanctification  and 
salvation,^  one  whom  He  foreknew  and  fore- 
ordained to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of 
His  Son.^  And  this  is  only  the  beginning 
of  the  process.  ''  Whom  he  foreordained,  them 
he  also  called :  and  whom  he  called,  them  he 
also  justified :  and  whom  he  justified,  them 
he  also  glorified."^  And  so  Christians  are 
regularly  spoken  of  as  the  "  called  "  and  as 
the  "  elect,"  and  the  individual  Christian  is  the 
'*  elect  one."  And  this  St.  Paul  believes  to 
be  particularly  true  of  himself  God  had 
separated  him  from  his  mother's  womb,  and 
called  him  by  His  grace,^  and  so,  in  the  words 
of  the  Acts,  he  was  a  chosen  vessel.  And  yet 
St.  Paul  speaks  always  as  if  each  individual 
man   was    responsible    for    his   own   destiny. 

1  2  Thess.  ii.  13.  2  Rom.  viii.  29. 

3  Rom.  viii.  30.  ^  Gal.  i.  15. 


FORE-WILL  191 

This  is  most  remarkable  in  those  chapters  of 
the  Romans  that  we  have  been  just  consider- 
ing. In  the  ninth  chapter  it  is  a  httle  difficult 
to  see  where  room  is  left  for  any  free  choice  of 
man.  "  It  is  not  of  him  that  willeth,  nor  of 
him  that  runneth,  but  of  God  that  hath 
mercy." ^  *'  He  hath  mercy  on  whom  he  will, 
and  whom  he  will  he  hardeneth  "^  "  Shall 
the  thing  formed  say  to  him  that  formed  it. 
Why  didst  thou  make  me  thus?  Or  hath 
not  the  potter  a  right  over  the  clay,  from  the 
same  lump  to  make  one  part  a  vessel  unto 
honour,  and  another  unto  dishonour  ?"^  But 
when  we  pass  to  the  next  chapter  the  whole 
argument  is  based  on  the  supposition  that  the 
Jew  had  a  free  choice.  "  They  did  not  subject 
themselves  to  the  righteousness  of  God."^ 
They  had  had  a  complete  offer  of  the  Gospel ; 
they  had  had  every  opportunity  of  hearing  it ; 
it  had  been  preached  everywhere.  But  they 
did  not  hearken  to  the  glad  tidings.  They 
had  been  a  disobedient  and  gainsaying  people.^ 
It  is  natural  under  these  circumstances  that 
in  more  recent  days  the  Calvinist  should  have 
built  up  his  teaching  on  the  ninth  chapter  of 
Romans,  and  the  Arminian  on  the  tenth,  and 

1   Rom.  ix.  16.  -  Rom.  ix.  18. 

3  Roni.  ix.  20,  21.         *   Rom.  x.  3.         •'  Rom.  x.  16-21. 


192        THE  DIVINE  PURPOSE 

that  each  should  have  attempted  to  evade  the 
direct  meaning  of  the  chapter  inconsistent  with 
his  views. 

There   have  been  various  solutions  of  the 
difficulty.     Some  have  ascribed  it  to  the  bad 
logic   of    St.    Paul,   some   to   his   manner   of 
isolating  different  aspects  of  the  truth.     The 
right  explanation  arises  from  an  acquaintance 
with  his  intellectual  training  and  a  recognition 
of  the  depth  and  reality  of  his  religious  life. 
As  a  Pharisee  St.  Paul  had  learnt,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  fundamental  teaching  of  Phari- 
saism, to  recognize  both  fate  and  free-will,  both 
Divine   foreknowledge   and   human   freedom, 
as  equally  true  interpretations  of  human  life, 
while  as  a  Christian  and  as  a  result  of  his  own 
experience  he  realized  to  the  full  the  truth  of 
this.     He   felt  that  he  had   been   chosen   by 
God  for  His  work,  and  that  he  owed  nothing 
to  himself,  but  everything  to  God ;  but  yet  he 
was  equally  convinced  that  for  all  his  actions 
he  was  personally  responsible,  for  all  his  evil 
deeds  he  was  personally  to  be  blamed,  that  he 
must  fulfil  that  for  which  God  had  called  him. 
"  I  press  on,  if  so  be  that  I  may  apprehend 
that   for   which   also  I  was   apprehended   by 
Christ  Jesus. "^     And  it  is  just  the  same  with 

1  Phil.  iii.  12. 


FREE-WILL— PREDESTINATION  193 

regard  to  other  Christians.  Always  St.  Paul 
seems  to  see  both  sides  with  complete  force. 
Everything  in  the  Christian  life  comes  from 
God ;  the  Christian  is  one  with  Christ ;  he  is 
filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit ;  but  equally  true 
is  it  that  he  is  responsible.  "  Work  out  your 
own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling ;  for  it 
is  God  which  worketh  in  you  both  to  will  and 
to  do  of  his  good  pleasure."^ 

This  is  the  ultimate  and  final  account  which 
religion  and  philosophy  can  give  of  human  free- 
will.    There   are   two   truths,  both  necessary 
beliefs    for    human    life,   and   apparently  in- 
consistent with  one  another.     If  we  look  at 
human  life  from  the  point  of  view  of  God's 
omnipotence,  or  scientific  speculation,  or  any 
philosophy   of  the  absolute,  human  free-will 
seems  an  impossibility.     If  we  look  at  it  from 
the  point  of  view  of  human  consciousness,  of 
human  experience,  of  our  moral  judgements,  of 
the  basis  of  human  society,  human  free-will 
must  be  an  axiom.     Both  points  of  view  are 
true,  and  they  cannot  be  reconciled,  or,  rather, 
they  cannot  be  reconciled  from  the  limited  out- 
look of  humanity.     To  that,  as  to  the  other 
great  problems  which  he  discusses,  St.  Paul 
would  have  found  his  answer  in  the  recogni- 

1  Phil.  ii.  12,  13. 


194        THE  DIVINE  PURPOSE 

tion    of    the    transcendent   character   of    the 
Divine  power  and  wisdom. 

In  no  part  of  St.  Paul's  teaching  is  the 
influence  of  his  theological  training  more 
apparent  than  in  those  subjects  we  have  dis- 
cussed in  this  chapter.  His  philosophy  of 
history,  his  recognition  of  the  Divine  provi- 
dence, is  a  direct  development  and  enrichment 
of  what  he  had  learnt  as  a  Jew.  His  attitude 
towards  the  problem  of  human  free-will  is  a 
direct  development  of  what  he  had  learnt  as 
a  Pharisee.  Normally  in  the  Christian  Church 
his  speculations  were  hardly  understood,  but 
from  time  to  time  a  one-sided  interpretation 
of  his  teaching  has  become  prominent.  In  the 
Second  century,  among  the  Gnostics,  there  was 
what  we  may  call  a  pseudo-Pauline  philos- 
ophy. St.  Augustine  developed  one  side  ot 
his  teaching  against  Pelagianism,  and  Calvin 
built  up  a  strong,  but  hard  and  narrow, 
theology  on  the  imperfect  apprehension  of 
his  religious  and  philosophic  attitude. 


X 

ST.  PAUL  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

The  character  of  his  theology — Its  relation  to  the  teaching— 
of  Christ  and  the  Apostolic  age — Its  influence  on  the 
Church — The  development  of  Christian  theology. 

We  have  in  the  foregoing  pages  examined  the 
chief  points  of  St.  Paul's  teaching  in  relation 
to  the  circumstances  among  which  they  arose, 
and  their  subsequent  influence  on  the  develop- 
ment of  Christianity.  We  have  made  no 
attempt  at  completeness  or  system,  for  St. 
Paul  does  not  lend  himself  to  either.  This 
was  partly  the  result  of  his  Rabbinical  train- 
ing, partly  of  his  mental  characteristics.  He 
could  not  be  systematic,  because  his  sym- 
pathies were  so  wide,  his  mind  so  great,  that 
new  thoughts  and  new  aspects  of  Christianity 
are  continually  obtruding  themselves.  It  is 
one  sign  of  the  inexhaustible  character  of 
St.  Paul's  thoughts  and  system  that  different 
commentators  are  able  to  construct  quite 
different    systems    of    theology    out    of    his 

195 


196    ST.  PAUL  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

writings.  One  may  make  justification,  another 
the  Ufe  in  Christ,  the  centre  round  which 
he  groups  everything.  One  may  see  only  a 
theology  of  redemption,  another  a  theology  of 
the  Church.  One  sees  predestination,  another 
free-will.  Each  of  these  is  merely  selecting 
one  side  of  the  teaching,  and  St.  Paul  con- 
tains them  all.  He  never  limited  his  teaching 
by  any  adherence  to  system,  and  commen- 
tators should  equally  avoid  it. 

If  we  desired  to  depict  his  teaching  as  a 
whole,  we  should  say  that  there  are  two  main 
elements.  There  is  St.  Paul's  mental  equip- 
ment, his  training  as  a  Jew  ;  there  is,  secondly, 
the  Christian  system  as  he  received  it ;  and  the 
two  are  unified  and  transformed  by  the  over- 
powering conviction  of  redemption  through 
Christ  and  life  in  Christ.  This  suggests  certain 
leading  questions  regarding  his  relation  to  the 
formation  of  Christian  teaching,  and  we  may 
group  our  discussion  under  four  headings : 

1.  How  far  was  St.  Paul  acquainted  with  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  and  the  record  of  His  Life  ? 

2.  What  was  the  relation  of  his  teaching  to 
that  of  the  early  Church  ? 

3.  What  was  the  particular  contribution 
which  he  made  to  the  development  of  Christian 
doctrine  ? 


PAULINISM  197 

4.  How  did  the  Christian  Church  develop  ? 

To  put  these  questions  in  modern  phrase- 
ology :  What  do  we  mean  by  Paulinism  ? 
Was  there  ev  er  really  any  such  thing  ?  What 
is  the  relation  of  Paulinism  to  Christianity  ? 

The  first  point  is  the  relation  of  St. 
Paul's  teaching  to  that  of  our  Lord.  It  has 
been  the  custom  to  lay  great  stress  on  a  state- 
ment that  he  made  of  the  independence  of  his 
gospel :  "  P^or  neither  did  I  receive  it  from 
man,  nor  was  I  taught  it,  but  it  came  to  me 
through  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ."^  With 
this  is  coupled  the  statement  on  which  we 
have  already  commented,  that  he  did  not 
know  Christ  according  to  the  flesh,  and  the 
independent  line  that  he  took  on  various 
occasions ;  and  it  is  sought  to  prove  that  his 
teaching  differed  fundamentally  from  that  of 
the  early  Church,  and  that  it  is  to  him  that 
we  are  indebted  for  the  leading  doctrines  of 
historical  Christianity.  We  have  seen  that 
the  assertion  concerning  Christ  after  the  flesh 
bears  no  such  meaning  as  has  been  given  it,^ 
and  it  is  to  attach  a  highly  exaggerated  meaning 
to  the  strong  assertion  of  his  independence  if 
it  is  taken  to  imply  that  he  received  his  in- 
formation  about  Christianity  from  subjective 

1  Gal.  i.  12.  2  See  p.  51. 

26 


198     ST.  PAUL  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

sources.  St.  Paul  felt  that  his  grasp  and  appre- 
hension of  what  the  Gospel  implied  was  not 
due  to  the  direct  influence  of  the  Apostles, 
but  to  what  he  felt  was  an  inspiration.  He 
must  have  long  known  the  leading  tenets  of 
the  Christians'  faith ;  it  was  a  revelation  from 
God  which  made  him  accept  that  faith  as  true, 
and  realize  all  that  it  implied. 

That  this  is  so  is  shewn  by  the  fact  th  t 
he  builds  up  his  gospel  on  an  historical 
Its  foundations  are  the  death  and  resurrec  i 
of  Christ,  and  these  were  facts  with  which  ne 
had  become  acquainted  by  human  testimony. 
He  no  doubt  learnt  to  believe  in  the  resur- 
rection because  of  the  appearance  of  Christ  to 
himself;  but  it  was  not  revelation,  it  was 
personal  inquiry  or  an  acquaintance  with 
written  documents,  which  told  him  of  the 
historical  appearances  that  he  enumerates. 
When  it  is  necessary  he  refers  to  the  historical 
narrative.  He  does  so,  for  example,  in  regard 
to  the  Eucharist.^  He  speaks  of  the  actual 
commands  of  the  Lord  in  relation  to  marriage, 
clearly  referring  to  words  in  our  Gospels,  and 
he  distinguishes  between  what  he  owes  to  the 
Lord  and  what  he  owes  to  the  inspiration  of 
the  Spirit.  "  But  to  the  rest  say  I,  not  the 
1  Seep.  180. 


ST.  PAUL  AND  CHRIST         199 

Lord."^  And  a  little  later  :  **  Now  concerning 
virgins  I  have  no  commandment  of  the  Lord : 
but  I  give  my  judgement  as  one  that  hath 
obtained  mercy  of  the  Lord  to  be  faithful."^ 
And  again  :  "But  she  is  happier  if  she  abide 
as  she  is,  after  my  judgement :  and  I  think  that 
I  also  have  the  Spirit  of  God."^  A  com- 
parison of  the  passages  suggests  quite  clearly 
that  St.  Paul  distinguishes  between  the  direct 
commands  of  the  Lord  and  his  own  judgement. 
The  former  come  from  precepts  of  the  Gospel, 
the  latter  comes  from  the  inspiration  of  the 
Spirit.  Neither  in  the  case  of  the  Eucharist 
nor  elsewhere  is  it  possible  that  he  should  con- 
found what  had  come  to  him  from  the  revela- 
tions or  inspirations  of  the  Spirit  with  the 
commands  of  the  Lord. 

St.  Paul  possessed  information  concerning 
the  teaching  of  the  Lord  similar  to  what  we 
now  possess  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  and  this 
is  reflected  directly  in  his  moral  teaching, 
indirectly  in  his  doctrinal.  The  former  has 
been  already  described,  and  its  resemblance  to 
the  teaching  of  our  Lord  emphasized.  The 
latter  was  really  derived  from  the  same  source. 
St,  Paul  does  not,  of  course,  speak  of  our  Lord 
in  the  same  way  that  our  Lord  speaks  of  Him- 

1  1  Cor.  vii.  12.         M  Cor.  vii.  25.         ^  1  Cor.  vii.  40. 


200     ST.  PAUL  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

self ;  but  the  question  for  discussion  is  whether 
his  Christological  language  was  based  on  his 
historical  knowledge,  or  whether  it  was  drawn 
from  some  other  non-historical  source;  whether 
the  Gospels  inspired  St.  Paul  or  St.  Paul 
created  the  Gospel.  There  is,  in  the  opinion 
of  the  present  writer,  no  doubt  that  the  former 
alternative  is  correct.  The  Synoptic  Gospels 
are  quite  uninfluenced  by  any  sort  of  Pauline 
theology,  and  they  present  to  us  the  main 
features  of  Christian  theology  in  an  untheo- 
logical  form.  The  personal  claims  of  Christ 
implied  in  His  words  and  works  are  earlier  than 
the  theological  interpretations  of  them  in  St. 
Paul.  The  Christian  doctrine  of  the  Atonement 
was  developed  from  the  fact  of  our  Lord's  death 
and  the  significance  ascribed  to  it  by  our  Lord 
Himself.  St.  Paul  did  not  create  the  Christian 
idea  of  that  death.  Forgiveness  of  sins  becomes 
justification.  Faith  interprets  the  spirit  of  dis- 
cipleship  ;  the  Church,  the  Christian  solidarity. 
A  more  difficult  problem  is  presented  by  the 
relation  of  the  teaching  of  St.  Paul  to  that  of 
St.  John's  Gospel.  With  M^iters  of  a  certain 
school  it  is  an  axiom  that  the  Johannine 
theology  is  only  a  developed  Paulinism.  But 
facts  hardly  support  this.  It  is,  of  course, 
quite  true   that  St.  John's  Gospel  represents 


ST.  JOHN'S  GOSPEL  201 

the  teaching  of  our  Lord  transhited  uiio  the 
language  and  thought  of  a  very  dillererit 
environment,  and  that  tiiere  is  a  certain 
amount  of  very  obvious  development.  It  is, 
hovi^ever,  instructive  to  notice  how  very 
different  in  many  ways  is  the  teaching  from 
that  of  St.  l^aul.  I'here  were  in  the  teaching 
of  St.  John,  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  of 
St.  Peter,  of  St.  Paul  himself,  common  elements 
which  might  seem  to  transcend  the  teaching  of 
the  Synoptic  Gospels.  All  seem  to  express  a 
more  developed  view  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  of 
our  union  with  Him,  and  the  life  in  Clirist, 
which  is  the  Church.  They  all  express  them- 
selves so  differently  in  many  ways  tfiat  the 
amount  of  independence  is  too  great  to  let  us 
regard  them  as  derived  from  one  another.  Tlie 
direct  points  of  contact  are  slight.  They  all 
alike  have  the  appearance  rather  of  going  back 
to  a  common  source  which  they  have  each 
developed  in  his  own  way.  We  think  that  it 
will  ultimately  be  held  that  all  these  lines  of 
development  are  derived  from  certain  elements 
in  our  Lord's  teaching  which  are  represented 
to  us  by  the  discourses  attributed  to  Him  in 
St.  John's  Gospel. 

The  ultimate  source  oi'  St.  Paul's  teaching, 
then,  was  the  life  and   words  of  .Jesus ;   arid 


202     ST.  PAUL  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

equally  did  he  share  with  the  Apostolic  Church 
the  main  elements  of  his  teaching.  This  he 
tells  us  definitely  himself,  when  speaking  of  the 
death  and  resurrection  of  Christ :  "  Now  I 
made  known  unto  you,  brethren,  the  gospel 
which  I  preached  unto  you,  which  also  ye 
received,  wherein  also  ye  stand,  by  which  also 
ye  are  saved.  ...  I  delivered  unto  you  first 
of  all  that  which  also  I  received.  .  .  .  Whether 
then  it  be  I  or  they,  so  we  preach,  and  so  ye 
beheved."^  This  definite  statement  of  St.  Paul 
is  corroborated  by  the  fact  that  there  is  a 
singular  unanimity  among  all  Christian  writers 
as  to  the  fundamental  points  of  their  teaching. 
In  the  different  groups  of  books  in  the  New 
Testament  we  have  a  very  remarkable  indi- 
viduality of  style  and  thought,  combined  with 
an  equally  remarkable  unanimity  of  opinion 
on  certain  fundamental  points.  No  one  could 
describe  the  Book  of  Revelation  as  being  in  any 
sense  Pauline,  but  it  teaches  in  as  remarkable  a 
way  as  St.  Paul  ever  does  the  eternity,  the  pre- 
existence,  and  the  exaltation,  of  Christ.  The 
vision  of  the  '  Lamb  as  it  had  been  slain,'  is 
as  definite  a  representation  of  the  sacrificial 
interpretation  of  the  death  of  Christ  as  any- 
thing in  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  or  the  Epistle  to 

1   1  Cor.  XV.  1-11. 


ST.  PAUL  AND  THE  CHURCH     203 

the  Hebrews.  Clearly,  all  this  teaching  goes 
back  to  a  common  source^  and  represents  the 
common  tradition  of  the  Apostolic  Church. 

And  if  we  turn  to  more  specific  points,  we 
shall  find  that  even  the  actual  development  of 
Christianity  was  not  due  to  St.  Paul.  Apart 
from  him  the  Gospel  had  been  preached  to 
Gentiles ;  others  besides,  and  independent  of 
him,  disregarded  enactments  of  the  Jewish 
law.  He  can  appeal  to  their  recognition  of 
the  power  of  faith  and  the  gift  of  the  Spirit. 
Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  are  always  re- 
ferred to  as  recognized  and  accepted  Christian 
institutions,  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
represents  these,  and  the  conception  of  the 
Church,  as  part  of  the  ordinary  Christian 
tradition.  The  Christianity  of  St.  Paul  was 
the  Christianity  of  the  Church. 

What,  then,  were  the  particular  points, 
which  were  peculiar  to  him,  which  he  brought 
into  Christianity  ? 

His  influence  was  twofold.  On  the  one  side 
there  were  those  elements  which  he  owed  to 
his  Rabbinical  training.  He  was,  so  far  as  we 
know,  the  first  Christian  theologian.  He  did 
not,  as  we  have  seen,  construct  a  theological 
system,  but  he  wrote  theology.  He  had  to 
deal  with  intellectual  problems  which  presented 


204     ST.  PAUL  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

themselves  to  him,  and  he  solved  them,  as  was 
natm^al,  with  the  aid  of  the  intellectual  training 
that  he  had  received.  To  this  side  belongs, 
probably,  all  the  more  formal  side  of  his  teach- 
ing on  justification,  his  theory  of  Christ  as  the 
Second  Adam,  the  ascription  of  the  origin  of 
sin  and  death  to  the  fall  of  Adam,  his  language 
on  predestination  and  election,  some  elements 
in  his  conception  of  the  philosophy  of  history, 
and,  to  some  extent  at  any  rate,  his  Biblical 
exegesis.  All  these  are  the  most  definitely 
Pauline  elements.  They  are  entirely,  or  almost 
entirely,  absent  from  other  writings  of  the  New 
Testament,  except  in  so  far  as  Acts  refers 
to  them ;  they  were  not  shared  by  any  of  his 
contemporaries  ;  and  they  did  not  become  part 
of  traditional  Christianity. 

The  other  side  of  St.  Paul's  contribution  to 
Christianity  was  of  a  different  character.  It 
was  due  to  the  reality  of  his  Christianity — to 
the  fact  that  he  saw  the  issue  more  clearly,  that 
he  had  greater  spiritual  power  and  insight,  that 
he  seemed  to  know  even  better  than  many  of 
those  who  had  been  with  Jesus  the  mind  of  the 
Master.  So  he  grasped  more  fully  than  his  con- 
temporaries what  Christianity  meant.  Faith, 
discipleship,  love,  all  expressing  his  devotion 
to  Christ  as  his  Redeemer,  were  the  key  to  all 


THE  GROWTH  OF  THE  CHURCH  205 

that  he  taught.  This  faith  taught  him  what 
was  meant  by  the  Hfe  in  Christ :  through  it  he 
grasped  the  transitoriness  of  the  law ;  through 
this  faith  he  had  received  the  gift  of  the  Spirit, 
and  so  knew  how  imperfect  was  the  idea  of 
law ;  through  this  faith  he  had  grasped  more 
fully  the  universality  of  the  Gospel ;  and 
taught  by  experience,  with  his  vision  expanded, 
perhaps,  by  the  gradual  unfolding  before  him 
of  the  greatness  of  the  Roman  Empire,  he  had 
conceived  the  great  conception  of  the  Church 
which  he  expounds  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephe- 
sians,  which  was  in  a  sense  the  culminating 
point  of  his  teaching. 

This  represents  the  influence  of  St.  Paul 
on  the  development  of  Christianity.  He  was 
not  isolated ;  others  were  working  with  him. 
He  and  they  alike  thus  contributed  to  the 
normal  development  of  the  Catholic  Church. 

But  those  doctrines  which  are  sometimes 
called  specifically  Pauline  were  not  grasped 
or  understood  in  the  same  way.  They  did 
not  become  part  of  ordinary  Christian  life  and 
thought.  They  became  prominent  at  different 
epochs,  often  in  an  exaggerated  form.  Some 
Paulinism  (in  this  sense)  is  to  be  found  among 
the  teaching  of  the  Gnostics  ;  it  was  clearly 
the  teaching  of  St.  Paul  which  helped  in  the 


206     ST.  PAUL  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

building  up  of  the  Augustinian  theology ;  and 
once  again,  at  the  Reformation,  its  influence 
was  exhibited  through  Luther  and  Calvin. 
In  all  these  cases  there  was  something  dis- 
proportionate in  its  influence.  It  was  not  St. 
Paul's  teaching  which  was  reproduced,  but 
certain  special  doctrines  developed  in  a  one- 
sided way. 

We  can  now  estimate  St.  Paul's  place  in 
the  development  of  Christianity.  The  starting- 
point  of  the  Christian  religion  is  the  Life  and 
Death  and  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  as 
recorded  in  the  Gospels,  and  of  the  general 
truth  of  that  narrative  there  need  be  no  doubt. 
After  the  tragedy  of  the  Cross,  which  seemed 
to  destroy  their  hopes,  and  the  triumph  of  the 
Resurrection,  the  disciples  began  to  understand 
and  preach  their  Master.  He  had  definitely 
claimed  to  be  the  Messiah.  He  had  been 
accepted  as  such,  and  to  them  the  truth  of  His 
claims  was  witnessed  to  by  the  Resurrection. 
From  Him  came  ultimately  the  great  truths 
of  Christianity,  and  its  moral  teaching,  always 
taught  as  principles,  not  formulated  into  rules. 
All  this  was  studied  by  the  early  Church  in  the 
light  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  of  its  religious 
experience,  especially  that  very  real  experience 
which  was  described  as  the  gift  of  the  Spirit. 


ST.  PAUL'S  WORK  207 

Thus  was  gradually  built  up  the  life  and  teach- 
ing of  the  Church.  Already  it  had  begun  to 
separate  itself  from  Judaism,  and  was  realizing, 
in  a  somewhat  dim  and  imperfect  way,  its 
universal  mission. 

It  was  just  at  this  time  that  St.  Paul  was 
converted.  From  the  Church  he  learnt  their 
traditions  of  the  Master,  and  he  accepted 
Christianity  as  it  was  then  taught.  What 
St.  Paul  taught  was  fundamentally  what  the 
rest  of  the  Christian  society  taught,  as  an 
analysis  of  his  Epistles  shews.  But  his 
strong  religious  personality  inspired  the  nas- 
cent Church  with  a  faith,  and  the  growing 
creed  with  a  meaning,  which  had  not  so  far 
been  realized.  It  came  to  him  as  a  revelation 
from  heaven.  He  did  not  change  it,  but  he 
realized  all  its  most  original  features  with 
greater  intensity,  and  interpreted  it  in  the 
light  of  his  theological  training.  He  had  the 
courage  to  take  the  decisive  steps,  and  was 
the  first  Christian  theologian. 

But  the  teaching  of  the  Christian  Church 
was  not  Paulinism  ;  it  was  more  Catholic  in  its 
sources.  The  Christian  religion  as  we  know 
it  was  already  in  existence  before  he  taught. 
The  creed  that  we  learn  differed  little  from 
that  which  he  learnt ;  the  life  of  Jesus  which 


208     ST.  PAUL  AND  CHRISTIANITY 

he  knew  differed  little  from  that  which  we 
read.  He,  like  other  great  writers  of  the 
Apostolic  age,  helped  to  swell  the  volume  of 
Christian  tradition,  but  there  was  a  good  deal 
in  his  teaching  which  the  primitive  Church 
after  his  time  did  not,  and  could  not,  grasp. 
Yet  at  times  there  have  been  great  crises  in 
the  Church,  when  controversies  such  as  those 
in  which  he  was  involved  have  arisen,  and 
hence  it  is  that  his  writings  have  done  for  a 
later  time  what  his  powerful  personality  and 
his  letters  did  in  his  own  day. 


INDEX 

N.B. — Eefereucea  iu  thick  type  (10)  refer  to  passages  where  the 
subject  mentioned  is  fully  discussed. 


Abraham,  faith  of,  130 

Acts  of  the  Apostles,  the,  10 

et  seq.,  23,  89,  96,  114,  160, 

178 
Adam,  fall  of,  122,  204 
Adam,  the  Second,  61,  204 
Aeons,  24 
Antichrist,  31 
Antinomianism,  137,  138,  140, 

173 
Apocalypse,  the.     See  Eevela- 

tion.  Book  of 
Apocalyptic   teaching,   13,  31, 

185  ;  see  also  Eschatology 
Apostles,  165,  171 

of  the  Churches,  166 
and  prophets,  172 
Arminianism,  191 
Atonement,  the,  74,  200 
Augustine,  St.,  138,  194,  206 

Baptism,   142,    144,    146,    174 

et  seq.,  180,  181 
Baptismal  formula,  the,  115 
Baruch,    Apocalypse    of,    182, 

183,  188 
Baur,  Ferdinand  Christian,  x 
Bishops,  164 

Body,  the  spiritual,  27,  33 
Body  of  Christ,  the,  177;  see 

also  Jesus  Christ,  Church 
Box,  Eev.  G.  H.,  123 


Called,  the,  167 
Calvinism,  191,  206 
Cambridge     Biblical     Essays, 

160 
Captivity,  Epistles  of  the  4 
Cathohc,  171 
Charles,  Dr.  R.  H.,  41 
Christ,  the.     See  Messiah,  the 
See  Jesus  Christ 
the  living,  69 
Church,  the,  163  et  seq. ;  see 
also     Primitive     Chris- 
tianity 
its  concrete  meaning,  163 
the  local  Church,  164 
its  unity,  165 
its  organization,  164 
its  members,  167 
the  Church  the  Body  of 

Christ,  168 
the  fulness  of  Christ,  170 
the  dwelhng-place  of  the 

Spiric,  170 
fulfils  the  Divine  purpose, 

171 
its  origin,  177 
foundation  by  Jesus  Christ, 

178 
the  growth  of  the  Church, 

179,  205 
Catholic,  171 
Clement  of  Eome,  St.,  137 
209  27 


210 


INDEX 


Collection    for    the    saints    in 

Jerusalem,  166 
Colossians,  Epistle  to  the,  vii, 

4,  45,  84 
Commendation,  letters  of,  166 
Communion,  176 
Corinthians — 

Epistles  to  the,  vii,  3,  44 
First   Epistle  to  the,  27, 

48,  104,  173,  180 
Second  Epistle  to  the,  15, 
27,  33,  104,  106 
Covenant,  the  new,  132,  150 
Covenant,  the  old,  150 
Cross,  the,  84  ;  see  also  Jesus 

Christ,  Death  of  Christ 
Curse  of  the  law,  the,  83 

Daniel,  the  Book  of,  31,  34, 182 
Day  of  the  Lord,  the,  25 
Death  of  Christ,  the — 
a  sacrifice,  77 
a  sacrifice  for  our  sins,  90 
a  covenant  sacrifice_,  85 
a  peace  offering,  78 
a  sin  offering,  78 
a  burnt  offering,  78 
an  atoning  sacrifice,  78 
our  Passover,  77 
an  act  of  self-sacrifice,  73 
a  sacrifice  by  the  Father,  73 
according  to  the  Scriptures, 

76 
redemption,  78 
reconciliation,  79 
the  abolition  of  the  law,  82 
a    victory   over    the    evil 
spirits,  87 
Development   of  Christianity, 

the,  206 
Dutch  School  of  Criticism,  vii 

Ebionitism,  x 

Ecclesia,  178 ;  see  also  Church 

Elect,  the,  167,  190 

Election,  186,  204 

Enoch,  Book  of,  41,  182 


Ephesians,  Epistle  to  the,  vii, 

viii,  4,  8,  34,  84,  169,  189 
Episcopi,  164 
Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  the,  2  et 

seq. 
Eschatology,  xiii,  22  et  seq.,  118 
Eucharist,    the.     See    Lord's 

Supper 
Evangelists,  166,  171 
Evil  spirits,  25,  86,  102,  125 
Ezekiel,  Book  of,  96 
Ezra,  the  Apocalypse  of,  123, 

182 

Faith,  128,  130,  135,  154 
Father,  The  : 

God  the  Father  of  all,  110 
the  Father  and  Son  asso- 
ciated together,  43 
relation  of  Son  to  Father, 

43,60 
relation  to  the  Spirit,  108, 

109 
the  promise  of  the  Father, 
113 
Flesh,  the,  50,  51,  98,  124,  150 
Free-will,  15,  192 
Fulness,  the,  47,  170 
Fulness  of  time,  185 

Galatians,  Epistle  to  the,  vii, 

5,  13,  17,  81,  119,  133 
Gamaliel,  13,  17 
Gardner,  Professor  Percy,  ix, 

161 
Gentiles,  the,  85, 133, 171, 184, 

187 
Gentiles,  the  Churches  of  the, 

187 
Gnosticism,  138,  194 
God.      See     Father,     The  ; 
Trinity  ;  Jesus  Christ  ; 
Spirit,  The  Holy 
the    fundamental    fact   of 

religion,  37 
God  is  one,  110 
the  Father  of  all.  110 


INDEX 


211 


God  (continued) : 

ruler  of  the  aeons,  25 

omnipotent,  193 

foreknows  and  foreordains 
all  things,  190 

His  purpose  conceived 
before  the  aeons,  24 

unchanging,  36 

supreme  over  all  things, 
186 

His  wisdom  and  know- 
ledge unsearchable,  188, 
194 

the  righteousness  of  God, 
128,  191 

God  unseen,  61 

revealed  in  Christ,  61 

God  in  Christ,  44 

Christ  the  image  of  God, 
45 

Christ  of  the  essential 
nature  of  God,  45,  60 

the  fulness  of  the  Godhead 
in  Christ,  47 

Christ  Crucified  the  power 
of  God,  72 

Christ  as  God,  60 

God  and  the  Spirit,  108 

the  purpose  of  God  con- 
ceived of  before  all  time, 
25,  74,  91,  172,  182 

the  providence  of  God,  190 

God  and  Israel,  78,  79 

God  as  judge,  25 

the  wrath  of  God,  26 

the  love  of  God,  73 

God  spared  not  His  own 
Son,  73 

reconciliation  with  God, 
79 

God  dwells  in  us  through 
the  Spirit,  174 

God  in  us,  150 
Gospels    and    St.    Paul,    the. 

See  Paul,  St. 
Gospel,      the      Fourth.      See 
John,  St. 


Gospels,    the.     See    Synoptic 

Gospels 
Grace,  15,  138 

Hebrews,  Epistle   to   the,  89, 

129,  201 
Hellenism,  ix,  16,  98,  116, 140, 

160,  173 
Hellenistic  Judaism,  15 
Holy,  167 
Hope,  154 
Hospitality,  166 

Iconium,  187 

Imputed  righteousness,  131 
Isaiah,  Book  of,  76 
Israel,  78,  79,  171 
rejection  of,  186 

James,  Epistle  of  St.,  138 
Jerusalem,  166 

destruction  of,  183 
Jesus  Christ  : 

His  pre-existence,  60 
His  relation  to  the  Father, 

43,  60 
Son  of  God,  61 
His  cosmic  significance,  47 
His  relation  to  the  Spirit, 

106  et  seq. 
His  personality,  58 
His  human  nature,  51 
His  earthly  life,  52 
His    relation    to    human 

race,  61 
Second  Adam,  61,  204 
the  Messiah,  38  et  seq. 
His   teaching    concerning 

the  law,  137 
His  moral  teaching,  159, 

160 
teaching  in  the  Spirit,  114 
teaching    concerning    His 

death,  92,  96 
founds  the  Church,  178 
significance  of  His  work, 
44 


212 


INDEX 


Jesus  Christ  {continued) : 
as  Saviour,  71 
His  love  for  us,  73 
becomes  a  curse  for  us,  83 
His  death,  72,  90 ;  see  also 

Death  of  Christ 
His  sufferings,  170 
His  resurrection,  54 
His  exaltation,  62 
His  coming,  25,  43 
His  wrath  as  judge,  25 
His  teaching  as  recorded 
in  St.  John's  Gospel,114 
Christ  and  the  Church,  47, 

167 
the  life  in  Christ,  33,  72, 

143,  168,  181 
St.  Paul  and  Christ,  197 
Jewish  controversy,  3,  165 
Joel,  Book  of,  95 
John  the  Baptist,  181 
John,  St.  : 

the  Gospel   according  to, 

113,  143,  145 
relation  to  the  teaching  of 

St.  Paul,  200 
First  Epistle  of,  143 
Judaism,  School  of,  13 
Judaizers,  134 
Judgement,  25,  35 
Jiilicher,  Professor  Adolf,  vii 
Just,  116 

Justification,  15,  73.  117,  130, 
141,  155 

Kingdom,  the,  23,  24,  26,  29, 
36,37 

Lake,   Professor    Kirsopp,   xi, 

102,  173 
Law,  126 
Law,  the,  83,  118,  126  et  seq., 

137,  1^,  155 
Life,  the  Christian,  140  et  seq. 
Lightfoot,  Bishop,  86 
Lord's  Supper,  the,  54,  56,  93, 

146,  156,  174,  176 


Love,  154,  159,  162 

of  God,  the,  132 

of  Christ,  the,  172 
Luke,  Gospel  according  to  St., 

113 
Luther,  Martin,  139,  206 

Mark,  Gospel  according  to  St., 

64 
Marriage,  57,  157,  169 
Matthew,  Gospel  according  to 

St.,  178 
Messiah,  the,  38  et  seq. 
as  Saviour,  71 
and  the  Spirit,  95 
MofTatt,  Dr.  James,  viii 
Monotheism    taught    through 

the  Jews,  189 
Morality : 

Christian,  153 

relation  to  other  systems, 

161 
Jewish,  142 
Moses,  126 
Mystery,  172,  184 

Omnipotence  of  God,  194 

Parousia,  the,  25 

time  of  the,  27 
Pastoral  Epistles,  vii,  5,  7,  9, 

29,  48 
Pastors,  164,  171 
Paul,  St. : 

his  training,  12 

his  conversion,  12,  18 

his  previous  knowledge  of 

Christianity,  16 
St.    Paul    and    primitive 

Christianity,  x,  203 
St.  Paul   and  Christ,  32, 
51  et  seq.,  66,  91,  136, 
158,  161,  197 
sources  of  his  teaching,  63, 

68,  161 
St.  Paul  and  Hellenism, 
ix,  16,  98 


INDEX 


213 


Paul,  St.  {continued)  ; 

relation    to    the    Gospels, 

xii,  56e^seg.,63,  67,200 

his  spiritual  experience,  75, 

80,  99,  129,  135 
relation  to  other  Apostles, 

165 
development     of     his 

thought,  43 
his  psychology,  98,  124 
as  a  theologian,  15,  137, 

195,  203 
influence    on    Christian 
thought,  xiv,  204 
Paulinism,  x,  64,  197,  205 
Pelagianism,  194 
Personality,  conception  of,  105 
Peter,  St. : 

relation  to  St.  Paul,  134 
confession  of,  92 
First  Epistle  of,  143 
Pfleiderer,  Professor  Otto,  106 
Pharisaism,  xiii,  91,  132,  192 
Pharisees,  the,  12,  17 
Philippians,  Epistle  to  the,  vii, 

45,54 
Philo,  15 

"  Philosophy  of  History,"  182 
Predestination,  15,  191,  204 
Presbyters,  164 

Primitive   Christianity,  x,  65, 
88 
relation  to  St.  Paul, 

97,  133,  202 
religious  Ufe  of,  134 
teaching  in  the  Spirit, 
113,  114 
Prophets,  166,  171 
Providence,  the  Divine,  189 
Psychologv,  98,  124 
Purity,  155 
Purpose,  the  Divine,  182 

Ptabbinical   teaching,  14,   135, 

162,  195 
Reconciliation,  79 
Pvedemption,  78 


Redemption,  Day  of,  26 
Reformation,  the,  180 
Remnant,  the,  187 
Renan,  Ernest,  9 
Resurrection,  25,  27  et  seq.,  35, 

144,  145 
Resurrection  Body,  33 
Revelation,  the   Book   of,  32, 

65,  87,  89,  90,  143,  185 
Righteousness,  128  et  seq. 
Robinson,  Dr.  J.  Armitage,  viii, 

168 
Romans,   Epistle   to   the,   vii, 

119  et  seq.,  144,  175,  186 
Romans,      Epistle      to      the, 

the  doxology  of,  188 
Rome,  116,  179 

Sacraments,  173  et  seq. 
Sacrifice,  77 
Sadducees,  17 
Salmon,  Dr.  George,  xi 
Salvation,  26,  130 
Satan,  24,  165 
Schweitzer,  Albert,  vii 
Scott,  Rev.  C.  A.  A.,  160 
Seal  of  God,  the,  181 
Septuagint,  the,  15,  159 
Sin,  98,  119  et  seq. 

remission  of,  78 

origin  of,  122 

psychology  of,  124 
Slavery,  157 
Solomon,  Psalms  of,  39 
Spirit,  the,  50,  95  et  seq.,  98, 

125,  150 
Spirit  in  the  Old  Testament, 

the,  95,  112 
Spirit,  The  Holy  : 

unity  of  the  Spirit,  102 

personality  of  the  Spirit, 
100  et  seq.,  113 

relation  to  the  Father,  109 

relation    to     Christ,    106 
et  seq. 

gifts  of  the  Spirit,  97,  147 
et  seq. 


214 


INDEX 


Spirit,  The  Holy  {continued) : 
promise  of  the  Spirit,  151 
power  of  the  Spirit,  149 
the    Spirit    dwells   in   the 

Church,  170 
hfe  in  the  Spirit,  33,  147 
Spiritual  Body,  the,  33 
Spirits.     See  Evil  Spirits 
Stoicism,  162 
Swete,  Dr.  H.  B.,112 
Symbolism,  33  et  seq.,  87 
Synoptic  Gospels,  the,  xii,  199 

Teachers,  171 

Thessalonians,  Epistles  to  the, 
3,  23,  43 


Thessalonians,  First  Epistle  to 

the,  vii,  27 
Thessalonians,  Second  Epistle 

to  the,  vii,  31,  143 
Titus,  Epistle  to,  143 
Trinity,  109  et  seq  ,  115 

Wisdom,  Book  of,  15,  33,  70 

Works,  135 

World,   transitoriness    of   the, 

25 
Wrath,  the,  26,  28,  72 
Wrede,  Professor  D.  William, 

xi 

Zahn,  Professor  Theodore,  viii 


THE    END 


BILLING   AND   HONS,    LTD.,    PRINTERS     OOILDfORD. 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  01018  5272 


mi 
■  ■■'''mm 


<  I 


iv^ 


J 


';>,i-t. 


